run_go_live_checks

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a pass/fail report with sample affected records, but does not mention authentication needs (though auth params exist), side effects, or performance characteristics.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, check categories, and output format. It is front-loaded and wastes no words.

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 the tool has 5 parameters (0 required), an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and output adequately but omits parameter details and usage guidance, leaving gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 only 40%, and the description adds no information about parameters. It does not explain the meaning of auth credentials, data_center, or how checklist_type maps to the listed categories.

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 clearly states 'Run pre-go-live validation checks on the SF instance' and lists specific check categories (critical, important, recommended), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform more granular validations.

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 implies use for pre-go-live validation but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over alternatives like validate_country_compliance or find_data_anomalies. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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