get_source

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 but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, what the response format looks like, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description is completely inadequate for a tool with 3 parameters.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this is a case of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description doesn't contain enough information to be useful, so its conciseness is a liability rather than a virtue.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and 30+ sibling tools, the description is woefully incomplete. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description fails to provide any meaningful context about what the tool does, when to use it, or how its parameters work.

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%, meaning none of the 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description 'fred/source' provides no information about what source_id represents, what realtime_start and realtime_end parameters do, or how they should be used. The description fails completely to compensate for the lack of schema 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 'fred/source' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'get_source' without specifying what action it performs or what resource it operates on. It provides no meaningful information about what the tool actually does, making it completely unhelpful for an AI agent.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 30+ sibling tools listed. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent with no information about appropriate usage scenarios.

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