get_data_source

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds useful context by disclosing what the response contains (script_text and columns), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not cover error behavior for an unknown ID or any access constraints.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded before the returned fields. It is efficient, though too terse to earn a 5.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, naming the key returned fields is a genuine contribution. Still missing are the shape of the columns/script_text payload, pagination or size considerations, and behavior when the ID is invalid.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single data_source_id parameter and does not. However, a lone, obviously-named identifier parameter leaves little ambiguity, so a baseline 3 is reasonable rather than a lower score.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a data source') and names two returned fields (script_text, columns), so the agent knows what the tool retrieves. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_data_sources or delete_data_source, relying on the name to carry that distinction.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., needing a known data_source_id), and no mention of alternatives such as list_data_sources for discovery. The agent must infer the retrieval context entirely from the name.

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