get_source_statistics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It reports read-only behavior implicitly (statistics) but does not explicitly state no side effects, nor does it mention any potential rate limits or performance impacts. The return type is specified, but more detail on the integrity score would improve transparency.

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 concise at three sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though the 'Returns' section could be integrated more naturally. No extraneous information is present.

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?

Given no parameters, output schema, or annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return format. A minor gap is the lack of definition for 'integrity score,' but overall it is sufficient for a statistics tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no parameter details. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds value by explaining the output format, which compensates for the lack of parameter 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves statistics about fact source integrity, specifying it returns counts by status and an integrity score. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which focus on source statistics.

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?

The description implies its use for understanding source integrity but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are discussed, though no sibling tool provides similar statistics, so the omission is less critical but still not ideal.

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