qc_submission_timing_bursts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'Flag suspicious bursts' without explaining the methodology, what counts as suspicious, whether it is read-only, or what it returns. The schema's x_suso_qc outputContract adds some structure, but the description itself remains thin.

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, direct sentence with no obvious padding. The redundant tool-name prefix is minor. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though very brief.

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 tool has 8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain inputs, configuration, or expected outputs. The x_suso_qc extension fills some gaps, but an agent would still lack practical guidance on how to invoke and interpret the tool 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 coverage is only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain plan, rules, profile, confirm_plan_id, questionnaire_identity, or how thresholds map to the detection behavior. The schema's own descriptions for thresholds and export_path carry most of the semantic weight.

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 verb ('Flag') and resource ('submissions'), and identifies the behavior: flagging suspicious bursts or very short gaps between submissions. This clearly differentiates it from sibling QC tools like qc_duplicate_records or qc_interview_duration.

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 alternatives such as investigate_interviewer_anomaly, summarize_interviewer_activity, or other QC checkers. The schema mentions required export type and minimum data, but the description itself provides no usage context or exclusions.

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