qc_logical_consistency

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, but it only says rules are applied. It does not disclose that failing records are reported, that structurally inapplicable rows may be excluded, or what the output counts and findings contain.

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 one compact sentence and front-loads the action. The only structural redundancy is the 'qc_logical_consistency:' prefix, which repeats the tool name, but there is no padding or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a tool with eight parameters, nested objects, no required parameters, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient. The x_suso_qc schema metadata partially compensates with output contract and minimum data requirements, but key invocation details remain ambiguous.

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 50%, so the schema itself documents rules, variables, thresholds, and export_path. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning variables, leaving plan, profile, confirm_plan_id, and questionnaire_identity without any documented semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('user-supplied logical rules') plus the scope 'across variables,' which helps distinguish it from the many built-in QC sibling tools. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as qc_roster_consistency.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should invoke this when the task involves applying user-supplied logical rules to variables. It provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tool routing.

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