source_search

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-read-only operation against an open-world source. The description adds the important note that matches are 'candidate evidence, never identity confirmations,' which is valuable behavioral context about result reliability. However, for a tool with annotations already covering safety profile, it doesn't explain why readOnlyHint is false or what mutations occur, leaving a gap.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and followed by an important caveat. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values, but it only notes that matches are candidate evidence. It also doesn't clarify the non-read-only nature despite annotations indicating mutations, leaving the agent without necessary context for a tool with poorly documented parameters.

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 0% for all three required parameters (projectId, runId, address). The description provides no information about parameter meanings or usage, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Search') and resource ('DC HistoryQuest public building index'), which is clear. Sibling tools include 'map_search', 'evidence_search', and 'source_import', so 'source_search' is somewhat distinguishable but the description doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description implies a search context but doesn't specify conditions for selecting this tool over sibling search tools like map_search or evidence_search.

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