Datasets List Data Model Lineage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description contributes nothing additional: no mention of lineage direction (upstream vs downstream), depth, scope, or pagination behavior, which are the distinguishing behavioral facts for a lineage tool.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. Its brevity is appropriate in form, though the content is under-specified rather than genuinely concise-informative.

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 needn't be described, but for a lineage query the description should at least indicate what lineage means here (upstream/downstream, column-level vs table-level) and identify the input identifier. Neither is present, so the definition is only marginally adequate for invocation.

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% and there is one required parameter (data_model_id) whose meaning, format, and constraints are documented nowhere. The description does not compensate by explaining what the identifier is or where it comes from, leaving the single parameter essentially undocumented.

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 parses as a verb ('List') plus resource ('lineage for a data model'), so the purpose is identifiable, but it adds essentially nothing beyond the tool name 'datasets_list_data_model_lineage'. It also gives no differentiation from the parallel lineage tools (workbooks_list_workbook_lineage, workbooks_list_report_lineage) or from datasets_list_data_model_elements/columns, beyond the implied resource type.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the related lineage tools, nor any prerequisites mentioned (e.g., whether the data model must exist or be synced). The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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