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

Annotations already declare this operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: it explicitly states that non-secret connection settings are included and that credentials are never included, which is important security-relevant behavior not captured by the annotation hints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and target, then adds one crucial qualifier about credentials. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple get-by-id operation with one well-documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context. It tells the agent what will be returned (non-secret settings) and what will not be returned (credentials), which is enough to call the tool correctly.

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 only parameter, dataSourceId, is fully described in the input schema with 'Data source id.' and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get one data source by id') and clearly distinguishes this from list operations by specifying singular retrieval by identifier. It also differentiates from schema-related tools by noting it returns 'non-secret connection settings', and the 'Credentials are never included' clause adds a precise scope boundary.

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 makes it clear this is for retrieving a single data source by id, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like list_data_sources or get_data_source_schema. The context is implied rather than stated, so an agent must infer the appropriate alternative based on the tool name and sibling list.

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