Get source status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: 'Returns saved observations without enrolling, polling or starting work' rules out side effects beyond the hint flags, and the cursor/revision notes disclose pagination and staleness semantics. It stops short of describing the shape of the summary or reservation records, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the read scope, then sequencing, then pagination/consent caveats. No restatement of the title or the schema; every clause carries operational 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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (summary, paged observations, in-flight reservations, cursor) and what the summary is needed for. What is missing is any sense of the fields inside the summary or the volume of reservations, but the tool is simple enough (3 params, no nesting) that this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the pattern/default/max for item_limit are documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining cursor continuation ('Continue item pages with the returned cursor') and that reservations are returned separately from the item page, clarifying how item_limit and item_cursor actually behave together.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with explicit scope: 'Read one standing source's summary, observed-item page and all in-flight reservations.' It also distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings (list_sources for breadth, set_source_consent for mutation), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

'Use after list_sources for detailed capture and classification state' gives an explicit prerequisite and trigger; 'use set_source_consent to change capture permission' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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