fetch_source_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the import is incremental ('latest content'), triggered immediately ('right now'), touches an external source type, and produces results that must be read via list_imported_content. It stops short of describing failure behavior or what happens on repeated calls.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the follow-up step placed at the end where it is actionable. Every clause contributes information.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers what it does, that it acts immediately, and how to observe the result. The remaining gap is modest: no indication of whether the import is synchronous, what happens for an invalid or disconnected source, or how long it may take.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Content source ID'), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description only implies that the ID refers to a source rather than adding format, sourcing, or discovery guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Import the latest content from a source') and grounds it with a concrete example ('new WordPress posts'), so an agent knows this pulls new items rather than listing or managing sources. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as add_content_source or list_content_sources, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'right now' establishes this as an on-demand pull rather than a scheduled or configuration operation, and the sentence closes with the exact next step ('then list it with list_imported_content'), giving a clear call sequence. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of alternatives for retrieving already-imported content besides the named follow-up.

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