check_table_completeness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, idempotent, and open-world operation. The description adds the output detail (percentage returns) but does not elaborate on other behavioral aspects like sampling behavior or error handling. It does not contradict 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. However, it could be improved by front-loading the most critical information, such as the resource and verb, which it does, but it lacks structure for readability.

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 description provides a high-level overview but does not explain the return format (e.g., dictionary of field names to percentages), pagination, or potential limitations (e.g., sampling behavior). Given no output schema, this omission is a gap. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%—all four parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies since the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 verb 'Analyze', the resource 'data quality and field completeness for a ServiceNow table', and the output 'returns percentage of non-empty values per field'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze_data_quality' by focusing on field-level completeness.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'analyze_data_quality', 'get_table_record_count', or 'query_records'. The sibling list includes many related tools, but the description does not help the agent decide when to select this one.

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