qc_roster_consistency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Check' implies a read-only, diagnostic operation rather than a mutation, which is credible given the qc_* naming convention. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, nor does it disclose behaviors like excluding rows with missing parent keys or requiring a Tabular export beyond what appears in the schema metadata.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted exposition. The redundant 'qc_roster_consistency:' prefix is minor, and the sentence conveys the essential topic efficiently without being padded.

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?

The schema's x_suso_qc metadata supplies useful structured context: output contract, methodology summary, required export type, supported variable types, and minimum data requirements. Still, the description itself does not tie these together or clarify when to choose this tool over qc_logical_consistency, and the lack of required parameters plus no output schema leaves meaningful ambiguity for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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?

With 8 parameters and only 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining how parameters relate, but it only names the high-level concepts 'roster counts' and 'nested roster relationships'. It gives no guidance on populating `rules`, `thresholds`, `plan`, `export_path`, or `variables` beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific action ('Check') and a concrete resource ('roster counts and nested roster relationships'), so an agent can tell it is a roster-focused QC tool. It is not a pure tautology, and the roster focus differentiates it broadly from sibling tools like qc_logical_consistency. However, 'internal consistency' is somewhat vague about exactly which comparisons are made.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling QC tools, nor any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. The intended use must be inferred entirely from the word 'roster' in the description.

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