get_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Per-article weight is deliberately not published' — a limitation the agent should know. It also implies a read-only nature via 'VERIFY,' but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive. There is no contradiction with annotations (none provided). The disclosure of what is omitted adds transparency beyond a bare function statement.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('The evidence — reach for it to VERIFY, not to explain.') and is concise overall. It contains useful usage guidance and a limitation note, each earning its place. Slightly stylized but not verbose.

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 list-retrieval tool with two optional parameters, the description covers purpose, output content (score, age, publisher, link), usage, and a notable omission (weight). It lacks explicit pagination details but these are minor for this tool. Given no output schema, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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%: both 'asset' and 'limit' have descriptions ('BTC, GOLD or OIL' and 'how many articles, 1-60 (default 15)'). The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: it returns the list of headlines that formed the current reading, each with score, age, publisher, and a link. It uses a specific verb ('reach for it to VERIFY') and resource ('evidence'). It also distinguishes itself from get_narratives by positioning sources as verification vs. explanation, which helps differentiate it from siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'to check a specific claim or to find the primary reporting behind a move.' It also tells when not to use it: 'for the explanation itself, narratives are cheaper and clearer,' directly routing to a sibling. This is clear use-versus-alternative guidance.

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