get_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by mentioning the inclusion of Ancestry's _APID codes when present and scoping to 'immediate events.' However, it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, how errors are handled, or the exact shape of the response.

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?

Two short, clear sentences with front-loaded purpose and no superfluous content. It efficiently communicates the tool's core function and a key behavioral detail.

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?

Given the simple input schema (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers scope and notable inclusions. It falls short of complete by not addressing edge cases (e.g., missing sources) or providing any usage guidance relative to siblings, but it is sufficient for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for the individual_id parameter. The description refers to 'the individual,' which maps to the parameter name but adds little beyond what the schema already implies. No format, constraints, or examples are provided.

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 clearly identifies what the tool returns: source citations for a given individual, including their immediate events. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_individual or list_ancestors, which serve different purposes.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this tool when you need source citations for an individual. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided, so agents must infer when this is preferable to related tools like get_individual or find_family.

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