data_quality_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only 'report' operation but does not explicitly state safety, potential side effects, or the nature of validation performed. Additional context such as whether it requires special permissions or returns sensitive data is missing.

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 that directly states the tool's function without any filler or redundancy. It earns full marks for conciseness and structure.

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?

While the description covers the core purpose and an output schema exists (freeing the description from explaining return values), it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency. For a tool with one parameter and no annotations, more context is needed to fully support agent decision-making, making this incomplete.

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 schema has one required parameter (filing_id) with 0% description coverage. The description's phrase 'for one filing' implicitly connects to this parameter but provides no additional meaning about the format or expected values. Since the parameter is self-explanatory, this minimal compensation is acceptable, though it does not fully offset the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Report extraction provenance, confidence, and validation for one filing' clearly identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like filings_list or filing_read by focusing on data quality metadata rather than listing or reading filing content.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other filing-related tools, so agents lack context for tool selection.

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