source_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses behavior: derived from current DB state, return fields/chunk counts, queryable semantics (partial coverage searchable, failed-enrichment chunks still queryable), backend/summary inclusion, and the absence of retrieval progress. This is exceptional transparency.

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?

Three dense, information-rich sentences: foundational purpose, detailed return values, and a performance caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 status tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description delivers complete guidance: return fields, queryable behavior in partial/failure states, performance expectations, and what not to expect (retrieval progress). Nothing essential is missing.

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% and the description does not explicitly define source_id. However, the single parameter is self-evident from its name and the phrase 'for a source'. The lack of explicit compensation is noted, but the triviality of the parameter reduces the impact.

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 states the tool's function: returning ingestion/enrichment status for a source. It uses a specific resource and scope, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is DB-derived and pollable, with no streaming and no retrieval progress.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Poll this to track progress' and clarifies 'no streaming — stdio is request/response', giving clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is unambiguous.

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