preview_contract_checks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Preview' suggests a read-only, non-destructive operation, and 'would be generated' indicates hypothetical output. However, the description doesn't explicitly confirm that no side effects occur, whether validation happens, or what happens on invalid input. This is a minor gap for a preview tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, which likely covers return values, and one simple parameter. However, the description lacks contextual guidance on how this tool fits into the broader workflow (e.g., using it before generate_dag_from_contract). It's adequate for a simple preview tool but not fully complete given the sibling context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds little beyond the parameter name. 'contract_json' is a string, and the description says 'from a contract', but it doesn't specify the expected JSON structure, format, or any details about how the contract should be provided. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Preview' with a clear resource ('schema and quality SQL checks') and source ('from a contract'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like generate_dag_from_contract or deploy_contract_dq_job, which perform different actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated. The description implies this tool is for inspecting checks before generation or deployment, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There's no clear guidance on workflow placement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.