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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful signal — that the withdrawal being inspected is 'permanent' — but does not say what specifically is lost (derived knowledge, publications, references) or how the impact is scoped.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The phrase 'exact owned source' is slightly awkward and could have been spent on usage guidance instead, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations plus schema are rich, so return values and safety need not be explained. However, for a pre-flight impact tool sitting next to source_withdraw, the description should say when to call it and what it gates — that is the missing piece.

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 both parameters (agent_id, source_id) document their provenance (agents_list, sources_list). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter roles or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Reports') and resource ('the exact owned source and its permanent withdrawal impact'), which clearly separates it from a mutating tool like source_withdraw. It does not explicitly name its sibling counterpart, so the read-only preview role must be inferred from the word 'impact'.

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 statement, no mention of calling this before source_withdraw, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is a pre-flight check, which is a meaningful gap given the many similarly named source_* siblings.

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