get_source_statistics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return format ('Dict with source counts by status and integrity score') and the scope ('across all facts'), but it doesn't explicitly confirm the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it) nor mention any side effects, performance implications, or access requirements. The return description adds some transparency but lacks depth.

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 succinct and well-structured, with a clear opening line and a dedicated 'Returns' section that outlines the output. It avoids fluff and stays focused on the essential information. The only minor issue is the slight redundancy between the second line and the 'Returns' block, but overall it is efficient.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return shape, but it leaves ambiguities: it doesn't define what 'status' means (e.g., possible statuses like 'verified', 'stale'), nor does it explain the integrity score's range or interpretation. An agent might need that context to interpret the returned dictionary properly. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately acknowledges the absence of parameters by focusing on what is computed globally. Since there are no parameters to document, this dimension is effectively satisfied.

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 the tool's function: 'Get statistics about fact source integrity' and specifies the output as counts of sources by status and an integrity score. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on aggregate statistics rather than individual integrity checks (check_fact_integrity) or listing stale sources (get_facts_with_stale_sources), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. Overall, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the related integrity tools. It doesn't state any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For a statistics-gathering tool, one might expect guidance like 'Use this to get an overview of source health, while check_fact_integrity is for per-fact verification.' This omission leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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