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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable behavioral context by stating that citations are inline as [n] and that facts are never invented beyond the sources. This goes beyond the basic schema information, though it does not discuss potential edge cases or error handling.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a single sentence with a colon to list the optional formats, followed by two short behavioral notes. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the input, output formats, citation style, and fact fidelity. It does not explain what happens with conflicting sources or how citations are numbered, but these are not critical for selecting and invoking the tool 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (format and sources), covering 100% of parameter semantics. The description adds a little extra context by explaining the format options and emphasizing source fidelity, but it mostly restates what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function: synthesizing multiple sources into a structured, cited brief. It names the specific output formats and explicitly mentions that it cites inline as [n], distinguishing it from sibling tools like multi_source_validator or privacy_shield_redact.

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 the tool (when you need to synthesize sources into a brief) and provides format options, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. There is no exclusionary guidance relative to sibling tools, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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