outline

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does communicate that this is a low-risk overview whose payload enumerates sources, boards/tags, date ranges and version coverage. It does not state whether the output is large, truncated, or paginated, but the existence of an output schema lowers the need to describe return structure.

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 definition is two short sentences plus one arg line, with the core identity front-loaded and the reading-order instruction immediately after. Nothing is padded, though the 'Args:' block adds little beyond a bare restatement of the parameter name.

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 single optional-parameter discovery tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, why to call it, and how to narrow it. The only omission is guidance on choosing between this and the sibling index_info, which would remove residual ambiguity.

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 0% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. 'source: limit to one source id' does explain the parameter's effect, but it never says where valid source ids come from or what happens when the argument is omitted (all sources), leaving a meaningful gap.

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 names a specific resource ('map of the index: sources, boards/tags, date ranges and version coverage'), which clearly distinguishes it from the action-oriented siblings search and fetch. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling index_info, which overlaps conceptually with an index overview, so the differentiation is not fully airtight.

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?

'Read this first to learn what the index can answer and which terms and versions it covers' gives a clear, actionable sequencing instruction that tells the agent to call this before searching. There are no explicit exclusions or comparisons against index_info, so the agent must infer which of the two overview-style tools to prefer.

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