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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the two distinct response paths (immediate rows vs. queued ticket with pledge/subscription URLs), giving meaningful behavioral insight beyond schemas. It does not mention prerequisites or financial implications beyond the presence of a pledge URL, but the outcome is well explained.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary instruction, and no redundancy. Every phrase contributes meaning, covering input modes and both output branches efficiently.

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 moderate-complexity tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential response structures and conditional behavior. It lacks explicit guidance on parameter combinations (e.g., can note/fields accompany either url or need?) but provides enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and property descriptions exist for all four parameters. The description adds little beyond paraphrasing the oneOf requirement ("Give a public list page or describe what you need in words") and does not enrich note or fields. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 title and description clearly state the tool's purpose: asking Licium for a source it does not currently have. The description specifies two alternative input methods (URL or textual need) and distinguishes the behavior for already-covered sources, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_source and 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 description implies when to use it: when a source is not already covered. It explains the immediate result if covered vs. queued result if not, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_source for existing sources, so it stops short of giving exclusions.

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