get-data-contract-latest-result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It says 'get' indicating read-only, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or behavior when no result exists. Minimal behavioral context beyond basic purpose.

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 a single clear sentence, front-loaded with key information. It is concise but could benefit from additional structure or context, though it remains efficient at 14 words.

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, the description does not explain what the validation result contains. It also fails to clarify the relationship with 'run-data-contract-validation' and 'validate-data-contract'. For a tool retrieving latest validation results, the description is incomplete.

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 both parameters described in the schema. The description adds only that 'by contract FQN' corresponds to the 'fqn' parameter, but does not add meaning beyond the schema for either parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Get), resource (latest official OpenMetadata Data Contract validation result), and the key parameter (by contract FQN). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get-data-contract-by-name' which gets the contract itself and 'validate-data-contract' which triggers validation.

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 implies usage requires a contract FQN but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-data-contract-by-name' or prerequisites (e.g., validation must have been run). No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

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