get_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a source record carries citation relationships ("who cites it"), which is mild extra context, but nothing about lookups failing, file scoping, or error behavior.

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?

A single terse sentence-fragment listing the record's contents; front-loaded and waste-free. It reads slightly like a glossary entry rather than an instruction, but nothing is padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. What remains—the field list—is adequate context for a simple lookup tool, though the missing verb and absence of usage guidance are small gaps.

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 100%, so both the id pattern and the optional file parameter are already documented in the schema. The description's "(@S..@)" restates the id format already enforced by the pattern, adding no new syntax or behavioral detail about parameters.

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 implies retrieval of a GEDCOM source record and enumerates the fields it contains, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_individual or get_family. However, it never states the verb explicitly ("retrieves a source record by id"); the intent is inferred from the tool name rather than asserted.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no conditions selecting it over alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid @S..@ id. The agent gets a listing of fields but nothing about when this tool is the right call.

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