get_datasource_extract_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses the Metadata API and returns information about last refresh, update, and workbook usage. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, error behavior, or potential side effects, which is acceptable for a simple read tool but not fully transparent.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a brief elaboration and structured Args/Returns sections. There is no redundant information, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly. It explains the input, what the tool does, and what it returns. Minor gaps (e.g., no error scenarios) are acceptable given the output schema and straightforward functionality.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It includes an Args section that describes the 'datasource_name' parameter with an example, adding concrete context beyond the schema's type and title. This adequately clarifies the parameter's meaning and format.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves extract refresh information for a datasource, specifying that it shows last refresh time, update time, and associated workbooks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'refresh_datasource' which triggers a refresh.

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 description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'find_stale_extracts' or 'refresh_datasource'). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from purpose.

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