sumo_qa_explain_test_data_requirements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral detail: it returns entity characteristics, conditions, dependencies, edge cases, and 'what NOT to use' guidance, and states it is domain-neutral. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured: a concise one-sentence summary, a bullet-like list of outputs, a domain-neutrality note, optional parameter clarification, and example phrasings. It is front-loaded and relevant, though slightly verbose.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly lists what the tool returns (entity characteristics, conditions, dependencies, edge cases, etc.) and covers optional parameters. It fully explains the tool's functionality and output scope, making it complete for its purpose.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It explains that `environment` and `domain` are optional and 'folded into the analysis', and implies `question` is the main input. This adds some meaning but does not specify exact formats or constraints, which is adequate but not thorough.

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 explains what test data shape and characteristics are needed for a scenario. It lists specific return items. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sumo_qa_finding_test_data or sumo_qa_validate_test_data, though the purpose is distinct.

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 common natural-language phrasings that map to this tool, giving clear use cases. It does not mention when to avoid using the tool or compare with alternatives, but the examples are helpful for appropriate invocation.

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