Get datastore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool bypasses owner scoping ('regardless of owner') and that it returns the latest job including raw data, which implies potentially heavy or sensitive data. However, it doesn't mention pagination, size limits, or whether the raw job data could be large.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, then lists the returned fields. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

For a read-only, single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what is returned. The only minor gap is not describing the shape or size of the 'raw data' in the latest job, but since there is no output schema, an agent might not know what to expect from that field.

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%: the only parameter, datastore_id, is already described as 'Datastore UUID' with a pattern. The description adds the context that the UUID lookup is admin-scoped and owner-independent, but it doesn't add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one datastore by UUID'), and a clear scope ('regardless of owner'). It also enumerates the exact fields returned (status, owner login, cmon internal cluster id, latest job with raw data, database nodes), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ccx_admin_list_datastores and ccx_admin_get_datastore_audit.

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 clearly implies this is the tool to use when you need a single datastore by UUID with admin-level access regardless of owner. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'regardless of owner' phrasing and the detailed return fields provide enough context for an agent to select it over list or audit siblings.

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