Get sources read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Free' and what fields are returned, which is useful, but does not explain pagination defaults, permissions, or the read-only nature beyond the implied 'get/read' framing.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose and use case front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place, including the useful 'Free' note.

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 tool with no annotations, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the return contents and use case reasonably well. However, it leaves the optional limit/offset parameters and pagination behavior entirely unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 only 33%: search_id is documented, but limit and offset are undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and fails to compensate for the coverage 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 states a specific resource — 'the threads and videos a search read' — plus the metrics returned, so an agent knows this is a source-listing tool for a search. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_search or get_quotes beyond implying raw comments come from get_comments.

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?

It gives clear usage context: 'Use it to cite a thread or pick which source's raw comments to pull.' That tells the agent when to use this tool and hints at the related get_comments tool, though it does not name explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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