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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that rows are from the last run and are dated/attributed, giving context beyond the schema. However, it omits authentication requirements, potential errors, and side effects (though it's likely read-only).

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant words. The alternative REST mention is useful.

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 2-parameter tool, the description covers what it does and the limit. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return format, error handling, and exact source_id semantics, making it adequate but not fully 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 covers 50% of parameters (limit described, source_id not). The description reinforces that limit caps at 8 and explains 'source' context, but doesn't explicitly define source_id. It adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the missing schema description.

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 returns up to 8 sample rows from the last run of a source. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_source or list_sources by specifying 'sample rows' and 'last run', though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving sample data from a recent source run. It mentions using the REST endpoint for more than 8 rows, providing some guidance, but doesn't compare to sibling tools or specify when not to use it.

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