get-data

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

The annotations include idempotentHint: true, which already indicates that the tool is safe to repeat. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that, such as side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not provide extra disclosure beyond the purpose (getting data). Given the annotations cover the main behavioral trait, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. It includes necessary workflow instructions but could be more concise by separating usage guidelines from the core purpose. The length is reasonable and does not contain fluff, though the sample query and get-schema instructions could be part of a separate section.

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 (per context signals), so the description does not need to explain return values. The description gives enough context to use the tool in combination with the sibling tools (get-schema, list-dataflows). It covers the prerequisite steps and important caveats (no file/URL fetching). Overall, combined with the structured information, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, with each parameter (dataflowId, executionId, query) having a clear description in the input schema. The tool description does not add any semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. The example query in the description ('SELECT * from data LIMIT 5') is a usage hint, not parameter semantics. Therefore, no added value beyond the schema baseline.

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 tool name 'get-data' and title 'Get and query data from a Coupler.io data flow' clearly indicate that the tool retrieves data. The description starts with 'Get data from a Coupler.io data flow run', which aligns with the purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get-schema or list-dataflows, though the name and context imply the distinction.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: first query a sample of 5 rows using a SELECT statement, then run get-schema to understand the structure. It also instructs on visualization behavior ('do not try to read any files or fetch any URLs'). While it gives clear context on when to use this tool, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, though get-schema is referenced as a prerequisite.

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