Get DataLens cloud environment

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), yet the description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts: the endpoint is experimental/'not measured', and an unknown id yields 403 Permission denied rather than 404. The latter is a non-obvious error-semantics disclosure that an agent would otherwise misdiagnose as a rights problem.

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, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, with the caveat and error-semantics note trailing. Slightly compressed phrasing, but every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description must characterize the return, and it does so by naming the four fields returned. Combined with the experimental-status caveat and the 403-vs-404 behavior, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though it says nothing about attribution or pagination (not applicable here).

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% with only two parameters, both documented in the schema, so the schema carries the burden. The description's field list ('cloud, subnet, status, storage') describes return content rather than parameter meaning, adding little beyond the schema — baseline 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?

States a specific resource ('one cloud environment') and enumerates what it returns (cloud, subnet, status, storage), which distinguishes it from the list/create/update/delete siblings on the same resource. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the singular scope makes the get-vs-list distinction obvious.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named (e.g. datalens_cloudenvironments_list for many, or the update/delete tools). Usage is only inferable from the name and the 'one cloud environment' framing.

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