how_to_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that endpoints are copied verbatim and never guessed, names the data-quality flags emitted (UNCONFIRMED, undocumented, gated, dead, no-portal), and specifies the handoff target. It stops short of stating that this is a read-only lookup or whether any auth is needed to call the tool itself.

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 return contents are front-loaded in one dense sentence and the flags are called out in a short trailing fragment. It is information-rich with little waste, though the packed clause list is close to overstuffed.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the flag vocabulary, plus naming the downstream MCP server and domain handling. An agent can decide and act from this, with only auth/read-only status left unstated.

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%, so the schema already documents entity, source_id provenance, and the registry_id rarity note. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 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 resource and enumerates exactly what the response contains (verbatim endpoint, API type, key requirement, example request, handoff server), which makes it distinguishable from find_sources and check_source. Slightly weaker because the name/opening frame it as 'how to query' rather than 'returns query instructions for one source'.

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?

Usage is only implied via the schema note that source_id comes 'From find_sources / list_sources_for_place results', which suggests a natural follow-up step. There is no explicit when-to-use versus check_source or registry_info, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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