get_product_lineage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description only mentions Atlas as config-dependent but doesn't disclose whether this is read-only, what happens when Atlas isn't configured, whether lineage can be fetched recursively (related to depth param), or any performance/caching implications. For a lineage-fetching tool with no annotation coverage, this is under-specified.

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 description is a single concise sentence, but it's in German while the tool name and schema fields are English. This language mismatch may reduce clarity for some agents. It's appropriately short but under-specifies rather than being efficiently concise.

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?

The tool has an output schema and two parameters with 0% schema coverage, making the description the primary source of tool semantics. The German description mentioning Atlas is helpful context, but for a lineage tool with a depth parameter and 16 siblings, the description is too thin to guide correct selection and configuration.

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%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't describe either parameter. The 'depth' parameter (default 3) is non-obvious — it likely controls how many lineage levels to traverse — and product_id's format/location is also unspecified. The description adds zero parameter semantic value.

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 it provides data lineage for a product, mentioning Atlas if configured. This gives a basic sense of purpose (verb+resource), but it's written in German, is somewhat terse, and doesn't clearly distinguish from the many sibling tools. It does differentiate implicitly from get_data_product and preview_data_product, but doesn't clearly state what 'lineage' entails.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'inkl. Atlas wenn konfiguriert' gives a small hint about configuration-dependent behavior, but there's no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool mention despite 16 siblings.

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