sumo_qa_explain_test_data_requirements

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

Annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world) already cover the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the specific outputs produced (entity characteristics, preconditions, downstream dependencies, edge cases, and 'what NOT to use' guidance) and the domain-neutral scope. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but for a read-only explainer that is minor.

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?

Purpose, return contents, and routing phrasings are front-loaded in three tight paragraphs. The phrasing list is slightly long but earns its place by mapping user intent to the tool, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what comes back (characteristics, preconditions, dependencies, edge cases, exclusions) and the domain-neutral stance. Complete enough to call correctly; only the required `question` parameter's expectations are left implicit.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it partially does: it notes that `environment` (with the example 'integration') and `domain` are optional and folded into the analysis. The required `question` parameter is never characterized (format, length, expected phrasing), leaving a documented-parameter gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: explaining what test data shape and characteristics a scenario needs. This distinguishes it from data-locating siblings like sumo_qa_find_test_data or sumo_qa_validate_test_data, though it never names those siblings explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

It provides a strong intent-mapping list of natural-language phrasings ('what data do I need to test X', 'what's the minimum data setup') that tell an agent when to route here. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g. 'use find_test_data to locate concrete records, not this'), so it lacks the when-not clause.

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