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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real value: it discloses that the manifest is 'immutable' (stable across calls) and enumerates the returned evidence fields (URL, retrieval time, rights class, byte counts, SHA-256, record counts, chunk vs single-object storage). It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown source_id.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the returned payload, then the disambiguating scope note. No filler and every sentence carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates precisely what the returned manifest contains, so the agent knows what to expect. With annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage on the single parameter, nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single source_id parameter is already well documented with format and examples, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the constraint that the source is self-hosted LiveDataLink, which is marginal extra detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Return') and resource ('the current immutable ingestion manifest') scoped to 'one self-hosted LiveDataLink source', which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling source_snapshot_list (plural) and from raw-data export tools. The closing clause 'This is provenance/status, not a raw-data export' nails the boundary of what the tool is.

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?

Clear context for when to reach for it (per-source provenance/status rather than raw data), and the explicit exclusion of raw-data export helps route the agent. It does not, however, explicitly name source_snapshot_list as the alternative to use when the agent needs the full catalog, leaving that inference to the agent.

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