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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool resolves IDs and returns lineage, but does not mention read-only nature, required permissions, or potential side effects. For a lookup tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the core functionality, input options, and special case without any unnecessary words. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool has a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., structure of lineage) and how it relates to sibling tools like get_data_sources and get_data_providers beyond input IDs. More context would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single optional parameter 'id' described. The description adds that omitting id returns the upstream source registry, which goes beyond the schema's description. This clarifies the default behavior, adding significant value.

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 tool resolves either a governed upstream source id or runtime provider id and returns the matching source or categorized provider with lineage. It also mentions a default behavior when id is omitted. However, it does not fully distinguish from siblings like get_data_sources or get_data_providers beyond mentioning them.

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 hints at usage by referencing 'from get_data_sources or get_data_providers' and notes that omitting id returns the upstream source registry. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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