explain_sources

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose that the operation is read-only, that results include 'missing-data caveats,' and that it does not offer clinical interpretation. However, it says nothing about the shape of the output or permission requirements, leaving real gaps for an annotation-free tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the most important qualifier (read-only provenance) comes first. It is dense to the point of mild opacity, but every clause carries 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone defines the contract. It conveys the topic of the return (source/sync provenance) and its caveats, but does not describe the structure or fields an agent would receive, leaving it only minimally 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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is no argument surface the description needs to explain.

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?

Names a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('provenance summary for local sources and sync cursors'), which clearly distinguishes it from the get_*/list_* siblings that return actual data. It is somewhat jargon-heavy ('sync cursors') but an agent can still tell what class of output to expect.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as get_bridge_status or the list_* tools. The phrase 'no clinical interpretation' is a scope boundary, not usage routing, so the agent must infer the trigger condition on its own.

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