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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful operational context: it names the covered sources, notes that FRED is disabled, and describes DBnomics as a vintage-pinned fallback. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the added source/fallback details go beyond the annotations.

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 a single long sentence that front-loads the source enumeration before stating what is actually returned. The parenthetical list of providers is informative but heavy, making it less concise than ideal for an agent.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the returned information: coverage, license, and attribution line. It also enumerates the sources, which helps the agent understand the scope, though it could explicitly mention the return format.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The schema is fully covered and the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics.

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 conveys that the tool returns the official sources behind StatCite, what each covers, its license, and the attribution line to use when citing. The purpose is clear, but the description does not explicitly differentiate this list from siblings like compare_sources or search.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compare_sources or search. Usage is only implied by the content being about source metadata and citation attribution.

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