validate_effective_dating

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

The description warns that gaps/overlaps are 'silent and destructive data bugs' and gives a concrete example. However, without annotations, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, and it omits expected output or error behavior.

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 three sentences including a helpful example. It is front-loaded with the purpose and adds value with the warning. No wasted 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?

An output schema exists, but the description doesn't mention what the output contains (e.g., list of gaps/overlaps). For a validation tool with 6 parameters, more context about validation scope or prerequisites would improve completeness.

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 coverage is only 33% (entity and max_employees described). The description adds no meaning to user_ids, data_center, auth_user_id, or auth_password. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 states clearly that the tool validates effective dating for time-sliced entities by detecting gaps and overlaps. This is a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like find_data_anomalies or reconcile_data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or contextual hints such as 'use this to check for missing records'.

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