Get a specific data source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the permission requirement, which is genuinely useful context not present in annotations, but says nothing about what is returned or whether non-existent IDs error — acceptable since an output schema exists.

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?

Very short, but two of its three sentences are near-duplicates of each other, and the permission note is buried at the end rather than front-loaded as a prerequisite. The one non-redundant fact earns its place; the rest is waste.

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 full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the structured data carries most of the burden, so the description is minimally sufficient. It still leaves the agent guessing what a data source is in this product and how this read differs from listing, which is the remaining gap.

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 100%, so all three parameters (including the enum on response_format) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that — notably it does not clarify the odd "verbose: Skip per-item compactor" semantics — so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Get a specific data source"), which is enough for an agent to know the operation. However, it never differentiates from siblings such as action1_list_data_sources, action1_create_data_source, or action1_get_report_or_category, and the second sentence merely restates the first.

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 only guidance is the permission line ("Perm: manage_data_sources, manage_reports"), which is about authorization, not about when to choose this tool. Nothing tells the agent to use list_data_sources for enumeration and this tool only when an ID is already known.

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