proofpage_get_source_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Read" implies a non-mutating operation, but it says nothing about auth/permission requirements, freshness or caching of the access state, or whether an absent state is an error — all critical for a tool literally about access.

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?

Five words, front-loaded, with no filler — but this is conciseness achieved through omission rather than economy. One clarifying clause about what "access state" contains would cost almost nothing and remove most of the ambiguity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is the only source of context an agent has, and it provides none on return shape, error behavior, or interpretation of the access state. A one-parameter read tool is simple, but this is below the minimum needed to call it confidently.

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 0% for the single required parameter source_id, so the schema supplies only a type. The description adds no meaning — whether the ID comes from proofpage_list_sources, whether it is a URL or opaque identifier, or what happens with an unknown ID is left entirely unstated.

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?

"Read source access state" names a verb (read) and a resource (source access state), so the agent knows it is a read of permission/access metadata tied to a source. However, "access state" is undefined and could mean entitlements, crawl permissions, or rights status — a sibling like proofpage_get_rights may overlap, and the description does nothing to distinguish 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus proofpage_get_rights, proofpage_list_sources, or proofpage_get_source_* style siblings, and no prerequisite or context given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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