get_source

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful domain behavior: preserving evidence dates, conditions, coverage gaps and warnings, plus a critical caution that missing context never establishes eligibility or a travel waiver.

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 definition is three short sentences and front-loads the read-only status. The first sentence largely repeats the name/annotations, but there is no verbose fluff and the key caveat is easy to spot.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with zero schema descriptions for any of the three parameters and an undefined notion of "source," the description does not give an agent enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 there are three parameters, yet the description never explains id, include, or release. The mention of "evidence" does not map meaningfully onto the include const or clarify release.

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 says "Read-only get source" but never defines what a source is or distinguishes it from siblings like get_coverage, get_travel_rule, or get_changes. The second sentence hints at evidence attributes, but the core purpose remains a near-restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives or exclusions. The caveat about missing context not establishing eligibility or a travel waiver is an interpretation rule, not routing guidance.

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