dq-failed-checks-by-dataset

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it groups by dataset, limits to 5 failures per dataset, and uses a recent window (via sinceHours). However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe potential side effects, leaving some behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

Single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part adds value.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It explains the grouping and time window but lacks details on output format, error handling, or how to choose among many similar sibling tools.

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 only 33% (extractFields described). Description adds no detail about topN or sinceHours parameters beyond what schema provides. It mentions 'recent window' and 'latest 5 failures per dataset' but these are output behaviors, not parameter semantics.

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?

Description clearly states it groups failing checks by dataset, uses a recent window, and shows latest 5 failures per dataset. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dq-list-checks (listing without grouping) and dq-get-check-history (history per check).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies its purpose but does not specify when not to use it or mention related tools for similar tasks among many dq- siblings.

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