feasible_now

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only explains core functionality (input availability check). It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, performance implications, or any prerequisites beyond having a dataset. This leaves the agent guessing about safety and statefulness.

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 remarkably concise: three sentences that assert purpose, provide a value-focused question, and differentiate from alternatives. Every sentence adds unique value 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?

The description explains what the tool does but omits details about the output structure (despite an existing output schema) and uses domain jargon ('nodes', 'PO-line', 'entity-profile') without clarification. For a tool with no parameters and a rich sibling set, some additional context on output format would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add information beyond the schema. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist, as the description is not penalized for lacking parameter details.

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 the tool identifies analyses that can be run immediately because all required inputs are available. It directly answers the question 'what analyses can I run today without acquiring new data?' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_analyses by emphasizing feasibility filtering.

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 contrasts this tool with typical analysis listing tools, implying it should be used when the goal is to find runnable analyses. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for different scenarios, missing some nuance.

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