Source Get Content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that no AI processing occurs, that the raw indexed text is returned, and it even adds a performance trait. It does not mention potential edge cases like unindexed sources or the wait/polling behavior, but these are partially covered by the schema.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, immediately followed by clarifying details about what is returned and how it compares to an alternative tool.

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 description, combined with the 100% schema coverage and existing output schema, gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and a performance-based comparison, though it could more explicitly address when a wait parameter would be needed.

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%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond noting the source types that back the source_id, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific action: retrieving raw text content from a source without AI processing. It also lists the supported source types and explicitly differentiates itself from notebook_query, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides a clear usage context by noting it is 'Much faster than notebook_query for content export,' which implies when to prefer this tool over a key alternative. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or exclusions for other sibling tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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