check_data_quality

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value beyond those by specifying what the audit looks for and that it returns 'an overall verdict'. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The audit scope is front-loaded, and the usage trigger is stated in the second sentence. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

Given full schema coverage, rich annotations, and a moderate complexity tool, the description sufficiently explains what the tool checks and when to use it. It does not detail the exact return structure beyond 'overall verdict', but this is a minor gap for a read-only audit tool without an output schema.

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 100%, so parameter meanings for start, end, period, and symbol are already fully documented. The description adds little beyond implying that the audited asset corresponds to the 'symbol' parameter, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Audit') and a specific resource ('an asset's price history'), then enumerates concrete checks: missing closes, zero-volume bars, gaps, suspicious one-session moves, and stale bars. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_price_summary or compare_assets.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when a result looks surprising or before a long-period analysis' and 'before trusting figures built on it'. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough to guide an agent.

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