get_lineage_chain

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds one useful behavioral detail: the chain is 'built from raw lineage and outcome data.' It does not disclose error behavior, ordering guarantees, or data freshness, but the read-only annotation lowers the burden and the description adds some context beyond it.

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 short sentences, no filler. The main purpose and the data source are each stated once, and the chain definition is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned, the chain shape, and the data source. The only notable gap is not explicitly framing the relationship to get_lineage_summary, but the output schema and annotations cover much of the remaining context.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter operator_id, including a type and an example. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full lineage chain for an operator'), and enumerates the exact chain steps STATE_A → BI_ACTION → ... → OUTCOME. The word 'full' and the explicit chain order clearly distinguish this from sibling get_lineage_summary.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need the complete lineage chain for an operator. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the closely related sibling get_lineage_summary, so an agent must infer the boundary between 'full' and 'summary'.

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