Get a source

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds that the response includes quotes, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about failure modes (e.g. unknown id/cite key) or output shape. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope detail (includes quotes) is placed where it is most useful.

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 read tool with annotation and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and return scope adequately. No output schema exists, but 'full detail including quotes' gives a reasonable expectation of what comes back.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including both id and cite-key forms. The description adds nothing beyond this, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb (show) and resource (one source) plus the notable scope detail that quotes are included. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_sources or search, but the singular 'one source' makes the retrieval-by-id intent clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_sources, search, or get_note. Usage can be inferred (fetch detail for a known source identifier), but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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