Fetch a curated EQL source

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It notes the eraAdvisory behavior, which is a valuable nuance. However, it omits any mention of error handling, rate limits, or that the tool is read-only, though these are partially implied by the fetch action.

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 two sentences: first sentence states the primary action, second adds a key behavioral detail. No filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 fetch tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers input and a notable output feature (eraAdvisory). It could be improved by briefly describing the full output structure (e.g., text plus advisory), but overall it is sufficient.

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%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond reinforcing that id identifies the source, but doesn't explain maxCharacters or provide additional context.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Fetch and extract text from a searchable curated public source by id'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like eql_sources (which lists sources) and eql_source_search (which searches). The unique eraAdvisory behavior further clarifies its purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like eql_source_search or eql_sources. It implies usage when a specific id is known, but provides no exclusions or context for choosing among siblings.

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