query_dmc_sfc_production_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it queries data, missing details on read-only nature, authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. The required workflow hint is insufficient for full transparency.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous words. First sentence states purpose, second gives essential workflow instruction. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Covers purpose and required follow-up. Lacks details on return format or pagination, but parameters (top, skip, orderby) and schema compensate. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, it is mostly complete.

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%, each parameter has clear definition. The main description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 it queries step executions and yield/scrap logs for SFCs, specifying the table name. It distinguishes from siblings which target other entities (e.g., orders, materials).

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 explicitly mandates a post-query workflow (compile report and invoke send_report_to_teams), guiding the agent on when to use it (to get SFC production events data) and the required follow-up. It does not explicitly exclude alternative uses but the sibling context clarifies scope.

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