get_source_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well by explaining that the tool returns codes, short keys, names, aliases, and provenance references. It implies a read-only explanatory lookup, but does not explicitly confirm side-effect behavior or access constraints.

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 front-loaded and appropriately sized for a reference lookup tool. It uses multiple examples effectively, though some of the explanatory example content is slightly repetitive.

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 one-parameter reference tool with no output schema, the description explains both the purpose and the shape of the returned information, including source codes, aliases, and references. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 parameter is already documented in the schema, including the example values and omission behavior. The description mostly repeats those examples and does not add substantial new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: it explains the data sources behind the registry's `sources` field and enumerates the source metadata it returns. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool it should be chosen over.

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 concrete question examples such as "what is FRPV?" and "where does the OSM data come from?", which clearly indicates when to use the tool. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so the guidance is strong but not fully complete.

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