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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the tool always returns the tier and current-version flag, which is meaningful behavioral information. However, it does not mention whether there are side effects, permission requirements, error cases, or how invalid ids are handled.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then states the guaranteed return fields, earning its place efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple and the parameter is fully documented, but there is no output schema and the description only partially explains the return. It names tier and current as guaranteed fields, but '素性' is vague about what other source attributes are returned, leaving some uncertainty for an agent deciding if this tool satisfies its needs.

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 100%: the single 'id' parameter is described with an example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable because the schema already fully documents the only parameter.

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 identifies a single source ('出典1件') and states it returns source attributes, with tier and current status explicitly called out. The singular scope distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like jhnrd_list_sources and jhnrd_search, though it does not name those alternatives.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as jhnrd_search, jhnrd_list_sources, or jhnrd_get_item. Usage is only implied by 'one source' and the id parameter; no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.

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