dq-tier-status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires special permissions. Only describes computation logic, not behavioral traits like safety or side effects.

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 conveys main action and configuration details but is somewhat dense. Information is front-loaded, but could be more concise by splitting into separate sentences.

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?

Lacks output schema, so agent has no information about return format. Does not explain key terms like 'scope' or handling of edge cases (e.g., missing data). Incomplete for a standalone tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The description adds context about default behavior and configuration overrides, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Compare and report meeting vs missing counts' against a specific resource 'overall_score per scope and Tier SLA targets'. Distinguishes from siblings like dq-score-trend and dq-failed-checks-by-dataset by focusing on SLA compliance checking.

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?

Implies usage for checking SLA compliance but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Mentions configuration overrides but does not name alternatives or prerequisites.

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