check_consistency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It communicates that the tool performs an audit and lists the anomalies detected, implying a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that it does not modify data, how failures are surfaced, or what the output contains beyond what the output schema already captures.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and key detection cases with no filler. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 is simple and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, missing tenant_id semantics and the absence of guidance about when the audit is appropriate leave notable gaps for an agent deciding how to call it 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what tenant_id actually does. The mention of 'null tenants' refers to an anomaly type, not the parameter's filtering semantics, so an agent cannot tell whether providing tenant_id scopes the audit or how it changes results.

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 ('Run') and resource ('database consistency audits') and then enumerates what the audit detects. This makes its purpose concrete and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like health_check, which likely targets system health rather than data integrity.

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 gives no guidance on when to run the audit versus alternatives, nor when to omit or provide tenant_id. It implies a data-integrity use case through the listed checks, but leaves the caller to infer the appropriate context and does not mention any exclusions or sibling alternatives.

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