Describe an operation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added content is the return payload (schema, description, example), which overlaps with the existing output schema, and it says nothing about auth, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but it is an incomplete fragment whose key information (the action) must be inferred, so brevity here shades into under-specification rather than concision.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety, leaving purpose and routing as the description's job — both are underdeveloped for a tool that must be chosen over three other ireland_* siblings.

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 both parameters are documented in-schema with concrete examples ('cso', 'cso_get_data'). The phrase 'one source operation' is consistent with source+operation but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 names the resource (one source operation) and what it yields (argument JSON schema, description, example), so the intent is inferable, but it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb for the action. It does not distinguish itself from near siblings like ireland_catalogue or ireland_call, which also deal with source operations.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus ireland_call, ireland_catalogue, or ireland_about. The agent must infer that this is the introspection step preceding a call, with no explicit guidance or exclusions.

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