dq-score-snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses it combines outputs from three sub-tools but doesn't state whether it makes independent API calls, or any side effects. It is read-only by implication. Reasonable transparency, but could explicitly state it is non-destructive.

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?

Description is one sentence clearly conveying the composite nature. Very concise. Could benefit from a second sentence explaining typical use case, but front-loads key info effectively.

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 and composite nature, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (aggregation of three sub-results). It misses mention of how the aggregation is structured (e.g., merged JSON), but the intended behavior is clear for an AI agent.

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 has 3 parameters (days, extractFields, includeFailing) with 67% description coverage. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Per rules, baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already explains 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 explicitly states the tool aggregates three specific sub-tools' outputs (score trend, tier compliance, failing checks). It clearly differentiates from siblings like dq-score-trend (single axis) or dq-tier-status (single component) by naming the combined result.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it vs. calling the individual sub-tools (dq-score-trend, dq-tier-status, dq-list-checks) or alternatives. It implies it is a convenience composite but doesn't specify scenarios where the composite is preferable.

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