get_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds only that the output is full bibliographic references; it says nothing about how unknown or stale IDs are handled, or the 50-ID cap, which is the main operational constraint.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves little room for the operational caveats an agent might want.

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 batch lookup with a full input schema, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential contract. The remaining gaps (behavior for unknown IDs, dataset defaulting) are minor for this complexity level.

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 schema already explains both 'dataset' (with an example) and 'source_ids' (format, page-suffix tolerance, max 50). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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 a specific resource ('full bibliographic references') and the exact input domain ('source IDs cited in datapoints'), so the agent knows this is a citation-lookup tool. It does not name or contrast with any sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'cited in datapoints' hints that this is a follow-up step after retrieving datapoints, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer the workflow from the sibling names.

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