get_data_source_schema

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with it. The description adds the scope of the result but no extra behavioral traits such as output size, pagination, or permission requirements, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation.

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, with the tool's purpose front-loaded and the prerequisite as the second sentence. No filler or redundant jargon.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and annotated as read-only, and the description explains both what is returned and how to obtain the required ID. It would only be more complete by flagging when a narrower sibling like get_table_info is more appropriate, but nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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 coverage is 100%: the input schema already documents that data_source_id is a number and says it comes 'from list_data_sources.' The description repeats that same guidance, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full database schema (all tables and their columns) for a data source.' The parenthetical 'all tables and their columns' makes the scope concrete and separates it from siblings like get_table_info or search_schema, which target narrower information.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: 'Use list_data_sources first to find the data_source_id.' This tells the agent the required sequencing. It does not explicitly state when to prefer get_table_info or search_schema, so it stops short of full when-not/alternative guidance.

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