Check Readiness

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. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the aggregate scope (all datasources, not one) and that each row carries both a runnability signal and a modeling-completeness signal plus a recommended next action.

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 sentences with no filler. The action-oriented instruction is front-loaded before the description of returned content, which is the right order for an agent scanning the text.

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 zero parameters, full annotation coverage, and an output schema that documents the return shape, the description needs only to explain intent and scope, which it does. Minor gap: "what to do next" is unexplained and the description doesn't note whether the list can be large or how results are ordered.

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?

The schema defines zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by describing filtering-free enumeration of every datasource.

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?

"Lists every datasource" gives a concrete verb and resource, and the qualifiers (whether SQL can run, how much is modeled, what to do next) define the exact payload. The opening "Start here" frames it as the orientation/status tool, which separates it from point queries like check_answerable, validate_sql, or get_modeling_worklist in the sibling list.

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?

"Start here" is an explicit onboarding instruction that tells an agent to invoke this before other tools. It does not name when to skip it or which sibling to use after a specific readiness result, so the routing is clear on entry but not on exit.

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