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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. The phrase 'including its honest limits' hints at disclosure of data limitations, but it is vague and does not specify side effects, authentication needs, or return format. The read-only nature is only implied by the title, not stated in the description.

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 extremely brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The phrase 'including its honest limits' is slightly awkward but adds a unique value. It is not padded, though the unusual phrasing could be clearer.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what 'everything known' entails and what 'honest limits' means. The tool could benefit from explaining whether it returns raw data, a formatted report, or something else, especially given sibling tools like source_report.

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 0% and the description only repeats 'one source id,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema property name. There is no explanation of what a source_id is, how to find it, or any format constraints. With a single simple parameter, this is a minimal but clear gap.

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 indicates the tool returns comprehensive information about a single source ID, using 'Everything known about one source id.' This distinguishes it from list_sources by focusing on a single source. The title 'Read one source' reinforces the read action, though the description itself lacks an explicit verb.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'one source id' — the tool is for retrieving full details on a single source, not listing all sources. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like source_report or get_rows, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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