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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Retrieve' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and 'authoritative' adds a data-quality expectation. But it does not disclose error behavior, access requirements, or any limitations, leaving the behavioral profile minimally 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and object efficiently, though the brevity leaves some details to inference.

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 one parameter and an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. Still, it omits a concrete series_ref format and any guidance on choosing this tool over siblings, making it adequate but not complete for a one-parameter tool.

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?

The schema describes series_ref only as a required string with zero coverage. The description adds the meaningful qualifier 'source-qualified', indicating the reference must carry source qualification, but it stops short of specifying the format or providing an example.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and identifies the resource ('authoritative metadata') and target ('source-qualified series reference'). This distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings like search_indicators, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_source_setup or list_sources.

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 phrase 'for a source-qualified series reference' implies the tool is used when a caller already has such a reference and needs its metadata. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or reference to sibling tools, so the usage context is only implied.

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