assert_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses read-only OData access, connection sourcing from params or env vars (QA_MCP_ODATA_URL/USER/PASSWORD), the exclusivity-lock failure mode, and the return shape {ok, actual, expected, record_count, deprecated, deprecation}. This is unusually rich disclosure of auth, environment, and failure semantics.

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?

The deprecation caveat is front-loaded and the tool mechanics follow in a logical order; the second DEPRECATION paragraph adds detail rather than pure repetition. It is somewhat long, but nearly every sentence (connection source, return shape, lock behavior) earns its place.

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 deprecated, 10-parameter, cross-cutting assertion tool, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, alternatives, connection/auth sourcing, failure mode, and return shape. Even though an output schema exists (so return values need not be spelled out), the definition is complete for correct invocation.

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 0% across 10 params, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantically critical ones (entity_set, filter, key, field, expected, match with its enum values) and hints at connection params via 'params or env', but leaves select, base_url, user, and password uncharacterized beyond that hint, so the compensating coverage is strong but incomplete.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Assert a value in the DATA LAYER via read-only 1C OData', and names the exact locating mechanism (entity_set plus filter or key) and comparison modes (equals|contains|regex). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from form-level siblings like assert_form_value by scoping to the data layer, and explicitly points to read_record/write_form_fields_by_label as alternatives.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use ('valid ONLY against a SEPARATELY published, non-exclusive OData endpoint') and when-not (an infobase opened by a test client is exclusively locked, making OData read-back impossible). It names concrete alternative tools for the blocked case (write_form_fields_by_label value-read, read_record, read_form_descriptor), leaving nothing to inference.

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