Source Describe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by revealing that the summary is 'AI-generated' and that the response includes 'keyword chips', which suggests a non-trivial generation step. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it incurs latency/costs, or any side effects, so transparency is incomplete.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the primary purpose and key output details in under 10 words. No filler or redundant information is present.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It informs the agent of the result type. The only gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but the straightforward read-oriented purpose makes this a minor omission.

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% for the single parameter source_id, which is documented as 'Source UUID'. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond the schema, 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('AI-generated source summary with keyword chips'). It is obvious what the tool returns, and the name 'source_describe' aligns with this read action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like source_get_content, so it misses the extra differentiation credit.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as source_get_content, source_list_drive, or source_rename. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and context.

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