lineage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety. The description adds that it returns upstream dependencies, which is useful, but it does not disclose details like whether lineage is recursive, the depth of traversal, or the output format (list, tree, etc.). Given the read-only annotation covers the main behavioral trait, a mid score 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Column-level lineage') and immediately clarifies the query. There is no wasted wording, and the essential information is delivered efficiently.

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 lineage tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify the structure of the returned data, whether lineage includes only direct or transitive dependencies, how results are ordered, or any constraints on model_name/column (e.g., case sensitivity). The agent would need additional context to interpret the tool's response correctly.

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 implies that 'model_name' identifies a model and 'column' is a column within it, but it does not explain parameter formats, required syntax, or provide examples. The description gives minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent to guess acceptable values.

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 ('depend on') and resource ('column-level lineage'), clearly indicating it shows upstream dependencies for a given column in a model. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_model (which likely shows model details) and list_models (listing models). The phrasing 'which upstream models/columns does this column depend on' is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like analyzing dependencies, debugging impact, or contrasting with get_model. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' direction, leaving the agent to infer context.

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