sumo_qa_validate_test_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing the return shape (confidence level, freshness status, explained reason) and the two accepted input modes, which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and scope, then the return contract, then the accepted inputs, then routing phrases. Every line is functional; the natural-language phrasing list is the only mild padding, but it serves as disambiguation aid.

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 the return fields, and with no required parameters it clarifies the entry/entry_id alternatives. An agent has enough to call and interpret the tool, though precedence between the two inputs remains unspecified.

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 must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does: entry_id is 'looked up in the catalogue' while entry is 'a full record dict'. What is missing is guidance on which to prefer when both could be supplied, and the mutually-exclusive/optional nature of the pair.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Validate a test data entry') and immediately bounds the scope with 'without provisioning or mutating downstream systems'. That boundary is what separates it from siblings like register_known_good_test_data or find_test_data, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

Usage context is clear from the negative scope clause and the list of natural-language phrasings ('is this test data still valid', 'check if X is fresh') that should route here. However, it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit condition for when NOT to use it versus the find/register tools.

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