get_source

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. The phrase 'with identity authority' adds only a slight nuance about authoritative resolution; it does not explain failure behavior, what happens for unregistered names, or the exact output shape.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning and the opening verb immediately establishes the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool is a simple one-parameter, read-only lookup, the description adequately conveys the core inputs and purpose while annotations cover side-effect safety. However, since there is no output schema, the description leaves the return value and error behavior vague — an agent doesn't know exactly what 'resolve... with identity authority' returns for a valid or invalid source.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full responsibility for the parameter. It meaningfully specifies that 'source' can be a registered canonical name, alias, or internal UUID, which is essential semantics absent from the schema. It stops short of giving format or syntax details, but for a single-string parameter this is robust.

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 uses a specific verb 'resolve' and identifies the resource types: 'registered canonical name, alias or internal UUID'. This clearly signals an identifier-to-source lookup that is conceptually distinct from 'search_literature' and 'get_paper', though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from those siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'search_literature' or 'get_paper', and no exclusions are stated. The only usage hint is implied by the core action 'resolve', so an agent gets little help deciding between the alternatives.

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