eds_da_get_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement ('Requires EDS_DA_TOKEN') and clarifies the raw-source nature, but it does not describe response format, error behavior, or whether the operation is safely read-only (though 'Get' implies so). This is adequate but not rich.

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 with no redundant wording. The key verb, resource, and distinguishing context are front-loaded. The token requirement is a necessary disclosure. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, auth, and a key distinction from rendered output. It lacks details on the exact response format or potential errors, but the tool's simplicity and the clear 'get source' intent make this largely complete.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, including the '.html' assumption behavior. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that the path refers to a DA document, so it stays at baseline.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Get the raw authored source (typically HTML) of a Document Authoring document.' It distinguishes this from rendered/previewed output, which differentiates it from sibling tools like eds_preview_page or eds_get_page.

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 implies when to use this tool by noting it returns 'the source of truth, not the rendered/previewed output,' signaling it is the choice for raw source access. It mentions the token requirement but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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