catalog_get_admin_sources_by_source_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's only added context is the admin REST path (GET /catalog/api/admin/sources/{sourceId}), which hints at an admin-only surface but never states the required authorization or whether missing IDs 404.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but the first two sentences are near-verbatim restatements of each other ('Fetch a specific catalog source for the given ID' / 'Returns the catalog source with the supplied ID'), so one of the three lines is pure redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only says it returns 'the catalog source' without indicating the shape, admin-vs-consumer differences, or error behavior for an unknown ID. For a one-parameter read that is minimally viable, but it leaves the agent guessing about the response.

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 single sourceId parameter is documented as a UUID path parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond confirming the ID is used to look up one source; 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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (a catalog source) scoped by ID, which is clear enough to distinguish it from the sibling delete-by-source-id tool. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling list/get tool, but the verb+resource pairing is 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?

Usage is only implied by 'for the given ID' — the agent can infer this is a single-item lookup rather than a listing. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of prerequisites (admin scope), and no routing to alternatives.

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