Datasets List Data Model Lineage

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive=false, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it auto-paginates all pages and normalizes the envelope so nextPage is always null and hasMore false. Knowing that prevents an agent from attempting manual paging. It does not mention lineage depth, edge direction, or size limits on large models.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the pagination note follows it. The second sentence is dense and parenthetical but each clause carries real information; slight tightening (e.g., dropping the redundant Sigma-value aside) would improve it.

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, yet the description still helps by explaining the normalized pagination fields. However, it never says what "lineage" contains (upstream vs. downstream, whether columns or only tables are included), which is the main thing an agent needs to interpret results.

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% for the single required parameter data_model_id, so the description carries the burden but adds nothing: it never says where the id comes from (e.g., datasets_list_data_models) or what format it takes. Only the resource type is implied.

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 verb and resource ("List lineage for a data model"), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling mutation tools and the workbook/report lineage variants. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

The statement that it follows pagination to the last page implies usage when a complete lineage set is wanted, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as elements_list_element_lineage or workbooks_list_workbook_lineage. Context is inferable rather than stated.

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