profile_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it uses DuckDB SUMMARIZE and checks duplicates, which is consistent. No contradictions, but does not elaborate on performance or error handling beyond the caching requirement.

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 concise, with a clear summary paragraph and an args section. It could be slightly more streamlined, but every sentence adds value. No fluff.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, methodology, and parameter constraint. No additional information is needed for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial context: 'Resource ID (must be cached)'. This compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, clarifying the input requirement beyond mere type and required status.

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 explicitly states it produces a 'statistical profile and quality check' using DuckDB SUMMARIZE, detailing column-level statistics and duplicate row checks. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like preview_data or query_cached.

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 purpose is distinct among siblings, focusing on profiling rather than querying or comparison. It mentions the resource must be cached, providing a key constraint. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives.

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