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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: a 'graduated disclosure policy' and an explicit commitment not to republish source body text, which tells the agent about output restrictions. It still omits anything about result size or pagination, keeping it at a solid 3.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the payload list and closes with the key constraint. It is efficient, though the comma-separated inventory reads as compressed rather than structured, and nothing indicates why those five categories matter.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it still summarizes the payload. For a zero-parameter, read-only tool this is close to complete; the main gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to the many sibling exploration tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no argument semantics for the description to add or for the schema to carry.

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 names a concrete return payload — source families, locators, coverage counts, risk signals, and disclosure policy — which is a specific resource distinct from siblings like search_source_passages. The clause 'without republishing source body text' further distinguishes it from passage-retrieval tools. It stops short of a crisp verb+resource framing but is clearly interpretable.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. The phrase 'without republishing source body text' implicitly contrasts with search_source_passages or explain_chart_sources, but the agent must infer that routing rather than being told. No prerequisites or context for selection are stated.

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