lakeflow_feasibility

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly explains that omitting source_system scores all discovered sources ranked GREEN-first, and specifies the return types (GREEN/AMBER/RED plus pattern and rationale). It does not mention side effects or permissions, but as a scoring tool it is likely read-only and non-destructive.

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 extremely concise: a two-paragraph structure with a clear purpose verb in the first sentence, followed by specific output details and context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 single optional parameter and rich output, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, and what to expect. It references the broader migration context (28-source sequencing) and ties to sibling tools implicitly.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the behavior when source_system is omitted (score all, ranked GREEN-first) and provides an example value ('SQL Server'). This effectively clarifies optionality and default behavior.

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 verb 'score' and resource 'Domo source systems for Lakeflow Connect ingestion feasibility', specifying the output (GREEN/AMBER/RED, pattern, rationale) and context (28-source migration). It distinguishes from siblings like domo_discover and domo_assess by focusing on feasibility scoring rather than discovery or assessment.

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 implies usage for scoring source systems to plan migration sequencing, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives. The reference to 'input to sequencing the 28-source migration' gives context, but exclusions or sibling comparisons are missing.

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