register_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that optional retrieved_text enables quotation matching and that classification is 'transparent,' but it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, duplicate handling, required permissions, or what happens after registration.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to the high-level purpose. The phrase 'transparently classify' is slightly unclear, but overall the structure is appropriately compact.

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 10 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It omits return behavior, side effects, parameter semantics, required workflow context, and any guidance on the source_type classification values.

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%, and only one of ten parameters (retrieved_text) receives any semantic explanation in the description ('enables quotation matching'). Required parameters like slug, url, title, and source_type are left to be interpreted from their names alone.

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 states a specific action ('Register') on a specific resource ('a source') and adds the useful qualifier about classification and optional quotation matching. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling audit/report tools, and 'transparently classify' is somewhat vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_source_audit, run_mechanical_checks, or generate_source_report. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context about the intended workflow are provided; the usage is only implied by the verb 'Register.'

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