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 safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds useful domain context (what a data source is) and names the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about pagination flow, result volume, or how filtering behaves — areas the agent may still care about.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its definition. The trailing 'GET /v2/datasources' is slightly redundant implementation detail but arguably useful for developers debugging the API.

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 no-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate to invoke it correctly. However, with no output schema present, it gives no hint about what a returned data source record contains (id, name, fields), leaving the agent to discover the response shape empirically.

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%; name prefix filtering, page, and page_size (1-100, default 25) are all documented in the schema with defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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 (List) and resource (data sources), and adds a parenthetical definition — lookup tables feeding dropdown and database fields in templates — that tells an agent what a data source actually is. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like goformz_get_datasource or goformz_list_datasource_rows, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus goformz_get_datasource (single item) or goformz_list_datasource_rows (rows within a source), nor any preconditions or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and the sibling list alone.

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