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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds that this maps to GET /datasource/search and which fields come back. Pagination behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable given the low annotation burden.

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, zero filler, with the what-is-it definition front-loaded before the sibling routing hint and wire endpoint. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the four returned fields, and paging is fully documented in the input schema. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether results are sorted or how large a full datasource list typically is.

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 100%, including paging semantics and the hint to pass the previous reply's next_page_no, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the name filter or paging, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the data sources') and then defines the domain term with concrete examples (lookup tables feeding dropdowns and prefill, such as customers, sites, products). It also enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what a call yields.

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?

Explicitly routes to the alternative: 'Use formsonfire_get_data_source for the rows,' which cleanly separates metadata listing from row retrieval. It does not say when listing is the wrong choice beyond that (e.g., whether to prefer name-filtered search), so it stops just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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