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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real substance on top: the page is a snapshot frozen at publish time, update refreshes it from the current list, and 'update and revoke can end or replace previously published state.' It also discloses that the link is publicly viewable by anyone with the URL and that returns are bounded share metadata, never the full report snapshot.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest is a dense but purposeful action breakdown with no filler. It is long and reads as one run-on block, which makes scanning the action list harder than it needs to be.

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 seven-action mutation tool with no output schema, it covers lifecycle, snapshot semantics, expiry options, return bounds, and reversibility of previously published state. The remaining gap is the previewFingerprint handshake between preview and create/replace, which an agent would have to infer.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: all seven action values are explained and expiryDays is documented as 1, 7, or 14 days. The previewFingerprint parameter is only alluded to as something preview produces, never stated as an input needed by create/replace, and sessionId is left uninterpreted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: create and manage the single public link for a search, visible to anyone with the URL. That framing ('the one public link') distinguishes it cleanly from every other sourcing_* sibling, which deal with contacts, outreach, review, or reading results.

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?

Gives strong within-tool routing: status reads lifecycle, preview returns sanitized names plus fingerprint, create publishes, update republishes at the active URL, expiry/revoke/replace handle the end of life. It does not explicitly say when to pick this tool over siblings like sourcing_read or sourcing_review, so it falls short of a 5.

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