attribute_to_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 1000 AC coin budget shared with claim_for_self, the need for a specific reason, and the anti-inflation norm. It doesn't cover failure modes or exact deduction mechanics, but the core behavior is clearly described.

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 around 75 words, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently communicates budget and usage rules. There is minor redundancy between 'real intellectual debt' and 'attribute only when the debt is real', but overall it is well structured and not bloated.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, budget sharing, and usage restrictions. It doesn't explain return values or error behavior, but those are less critical given the simplicity and the 'Optional' framing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'source' with concrete examples, explains 'reason' must be a real intellectual debt, and gives 'coins' budget context. However, it doesn't describe the array structure, field names, or what happens when the budget is exceeded, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Credit') and a clear resource ('specific sources — scholars, papers, frameworks, datasets, named thinkers'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'claim_for_self' through the shared budget and division between external sources and one's own contribution, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly notes the tool is optional and provides clear when-to-use criteria ('attribute only when the debt is real', no name-dropping). It references the shared budget with 'claim_for_self', implying the alternative use case, but could more explicitly state 'use claim_for_self for your own contribution'.

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