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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's value-add is limited to naming returned fields and the underlying GET endpoint. It does not describe behavior on a missing/invalid ID, which is the main unknown for a fetch-by-ID tool.

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 short sentences, no waste; the payload content is front-loaded and the endpoint reference is relegated to a trailing clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the returned shape (name, columns, indexed columns) and the endpoint. What's absent — error/not-found behavior and whether columns include metadata — is minor for a simple read-by-ID tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented as a GUID with a pattern, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes it via the path template '{id}' and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Get one data source') and enumerates what is returned (name, columns, indexed columns), which distinguishes it from goformz_list_datasources by implying single-record retrieval. It's clear, though the distinction from list_datasources is only implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one data source' versus the sibling list tool, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. An agent can reasonably infer it needs an ID from a list call first, but that is left to inference.

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