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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it lists the full catalog of supported datasources rather than account connections, and clarifies the id format used elsewhere. No contradictions, but no additional rate-limit or response-size caveats are needed for this simple zero-param call.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and output fields, the second gives the typical call order, and the third disambiguates from a sibling. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, how to use it in the workflow, and when to choose a different tool. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning about the datasource_id field and its role elsewhere, which is useful context for selecting and processing results, even though no parameter documentation is required.

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 names a specific verb ('List every datasource Oviond supports') and resource, and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, category, data views). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like describe_datasource and connected_datasources.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to call this FIRST to obtain the datasource_id, then use describe_datasource, and directs to connected_datasources for account-specific connections. This is concrete, actionable routing guidance.

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