Get Data Sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the content (configuration, quota, how to raise limits) and aligns with read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format or potential latency, so with good annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by a direct usage cue. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns (configuration, quota, how to raise limits) and when to use it, which is sufficient for a single-purpose read-only 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. It communicates the tool's subject matter adequately.

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's purpose: 'Configuration and remaining quota for every external data source' plus 'how to raise the limits.' It uses specific verbs and resources without ambiguity, and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_account_info or check_connection by focusing on data source quota and configuration.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this when a data tool fails or seems rate-limited.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage scenario is specific and actionable.

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