Show a source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful scope detail that the result is an aggregate (source plus everything derived from it), but says nothing about what happens when the id or title fragment matches nothing, or whether partial-title matches can be ambiguous.

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 sentences, no filler, and the payload contents are listed up front before the citation use case. The opening clause ('One source with its summary and content') is slightly awkward as a fragment but costs almost nothing.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete annotations. The description covers purpose, payload shape, and one usage scenario, leaving only edge-case behavior (no match, ambiguous title match) unstated, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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%, and the single 'source' parameter is documented in the schema as an id or part of a title. The description adds no further meaning about the id-vs-title resolution or match behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource ('one source') and enumerates exactly what comes back: summary, content, records per entity, concepts and relations. That content inventory distinguishes it from generic retrieval siblings like search/fetch, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Use it to cite where an answer came from' gives one concrete usage context, which is more than nothing. However, there is no when-not guidance and no routing advice relative to search, fetch, or get_term, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with when it only has a partial title.

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