nexterm_get_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what a "source" record contains, what happens when the id does not exist, or whether listing/fetching triggers an external call (relevant given openWorldHint=true).

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the verb front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: nothing is said about identity source for the id or the returned record.

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-id lookup with no output schema, an agent mostly needs to know which id to supply and that it is a safe read. Annotations cover safety and the schema fixes the shape, so the practical gap is limited to how to obtain a valid id — a real but modest omission.

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 description must compensate and does not. It never says the id identifies a source from nexterm_list_sources or that invalid ids error out, leaving the agent with only the bare title "Source Id" and minimum 1.

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?

"Get one Nexterm content source" states a verb (get) and a resource (content source), but "content source" is ambiguous: siblings include list_sources, list_script_sources, list_snippet_sources, get_script and get_snippet, and the description does nothing to distinguish which of these is being fetched. It is understandable but not differentiating.

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 use this tool versus list_sources (to enumerate) or get_script/get_snippet (to fetch related content). The agent must infer that this is the singular-fetch counterpart of list_sources purely from naming conventions.

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