Get DataLens Lakehouse operation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool is experimental/unmeasured, and an unknown id returns 403 Permission denied rather than 404, which is non-obvious error behavior an agent should know.

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 and no padding. The status/result semantics are front-loaded; the second sentence is useful behavioral metadata, though its phrasing ('written from its document: not measured') is a bit stilted.

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 carries the burden of describing the return: it says the response reports done/not-done and then error or response. Combined with the error-code disclosure, this is largely sufficient for a single-parameter status GET, though the exact response shape remains loose.

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 100% and the sole parameter's meaning ('from making a cloud environment or a REST catalog') is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the resource (an operation) and what it returns: whether it is done, plus its error or response. The phrasing 'How far an operation is' is slightly awkward but communicates the status-polling purpose; it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling *_get tools, though the operation-id semantics make it fairly identifiable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of what produces the operation_id, and no routing to alternatives for other async patterns (e.g., forms_operations_get, wiki_operations_move_get). The second paragraph discusses error semantics rather than usage context.

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