summarize_export_qc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses a limitation ('Does not yet parse binary Stata/SPSS values') and the read-oriented nature of creating a summary, but it does not state whether the operation is purely read-only, how it handles malformed zips, or what warnings/next steps might be emitted.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists output contents in a clear, scannable sequence. Every clause adds information, and the limitation is stated compactly at the end without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description provides a reasonably complete picture: it names input type (export zip), the nature of the output (structural QC summary), and the categories included. It stops short of describing the exact return format or failure behaviors, but it gives enough context for an agent to understand what the tool produces.

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?

The input schema already provides good descriptions for all three parameters (coverage 100%), so the description does not need to restate parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, and under the 100% coverage baseline a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a first structural QC summary from a downloaded Survey Solutions export zip') and enumerates concrete output categories. It distinguishes itself from sibling QC/export tools by framing the output as a 'first structural' summary and explicitly noting it does not parse binary values.

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 implies when to use it — as an initial structural QC step on a downloaded export zip — and notes a limitation that rules out binary value parsing. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when another tool should be preferred, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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