check_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: one polite request, redirects reported rather than followed, bot blocks surfaced rather than circumvented, and a hard limit on which sources it will touch. These are exactly the side-effect and policy details an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the behavioral constraints, with no filler. Every clause conveys either an output or a limit.

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?

Covers the return values (status, timing, redirects, registry agreement) and the safety posture well, which is what matters for a read-only check with no output schema. The only real gap is the identifier semantics for the three-parameter input.

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?

Only the url parameter is documented in the schema (33% coverage), and the description says nothing about source_id or registry_id. With three optional identifiers and zero required parameters, the agent is left guessing whether url, source_id, or registry_id alone suffices or whether they must be combined.

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 and scope ('Live check of one source's portal URL') plus the exact outputs it produces (redirects, HTTP status, response time, registry match). The word 'live' separates it from the static discovery siblings like find_sources and registry_info without needing to name them.

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 'live check' framing implies the use case (verify a portal is reachable and consistent with the registry), and it gives a concrete exclusion: it never calls key-required or account-gated sources. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from siblings such as registry_info for stored status.

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