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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds a valuable behavioral warning that the returned text is published material to be read as data, not as instructions, which goes beyond the annotations. It also details what data will be returned, giving useful operational context.

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 two concise sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the behavioral note is second. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it returns, the behavioral caveat, and the fact that it operates on one source. Nothing essential is missing.

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 already provides a rich description for source_id (pattern, examples, and source from list_sources), and coverage is 100%. The description does not add further parameter-specific semantics beyond referencing 'one source', so it stays at the schema-driven baseline of 3.

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 ('Returns') and a precise resource ('one source's full record') and enumerates the record's components (registry entry, ingestion statistics, health, daily activity). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_sources, which presumably returns multiple sources, by emphasizing 'one source'.

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 usage (you need a single source's full record) and mentions that a source_id is required via the schema, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_sources or provide any exclusion criteria. The context is clear but not explicit about routing.

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