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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuinely non-obvious context: each row carries an id, a keyColumn used for lookups, and a value that is a JSON-encoded array of column values rather than a plain object. It does not mention pagination totals or rate limits, which keeps it below a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero padding: purpose first, then the row shape, then the endpoint. Nothing is buried and nothing is redundant.

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 explains what a returned row looks like, which is the single most important unknown for this tool. It could say more about whether paging metadata (next_page) is returned alongside rows, but that is a minor gap given the schema's page description references next_page.

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% and every parameter (name prefix filter, page, page_size, datasource_id) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the prefix-filter semantics or the next_page handoff that the schema does not already state.

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 rows of a data source") and immediately describes the shape of a row, which makes it directly distinguishable from the singular goformz_get_datasource_row and goformz_create_datasource_row siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 only implied by the verb "List" — an agent can infer this is the enumeration tool versus the single-row getters, but the description never says when to prefer it, when not to (e.g. when you already know the row id), or what a reasonable page size workflow looks like.

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