qc_nonresponse_by_enumerator

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Compare' implies a read-only analysis, but the description does not explicitly say whether data is modified, what gets flagged, how thresholds behave, or what side effects might occur. It does not disclose the output contract or exclusion behavior that an agent would need to anticipate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in a single sentence. The tool name is repeated before the colon, slightly reducing efficiency, but there is no redundant or irrelevant content. It earns its place but could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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's complexity—8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations—the one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to invoke it confidently. It lacks guidance on required inputs, threshold semantics, expected findings, and how this QC check differs from related tools. The schema provides some structured hints, but the description alone leaves major gaps.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain how variables, thresholds, export_path, or the nested plan/rules objects should be provided. The schema documents some parameters, but the description fails to compensate for the undocumented ones.

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 a specific analysis: comparing missing/nonresponse rates across interviewers. It uses a concrete verb ('compare') and a specific resource/dimension ('across interviewers'), which distinguishes it from sibling QC tools like qc_targeted_missingness. Even without naming alternatives directly, the interviewer-level focus makes its purpose unmistakable.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of other QC or missingness-focused tools. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference alternatives. The schema adds methodological context but no explicit usage or exclusion rules beyond data requirements.

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