gcfr_data_lineage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool returns (lineage chain with edge relationships and specific columns) and the default behavior for business_date, which is useful and non-obvious.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line core purpose, a brief behavior statement, a return-field list, and a default-value note. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists, the return fields are already structurally defined, so the description need not over-explain them. It covers the main input and default behavior, though it could add a brief note on how the target_table should be specified.

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. It adds meaning by explaining the business_date default ('Defaults to today'), but target_table is only described by its name and title, leaving its expected format (e.g., fully qualified or simple name) implicit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Trace a target table back to its source objects.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many status/process/load sibling tools by focusing on lineage and edge relationships.

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 implies the tool is for tracing table lineage, and the default business_date behavior gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative tools or mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond supplying a target table.

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