Appraise Source

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by describing the internal process: 'Places it in the 7-tier source-quality cadence, runs CRAAP and SIFT checks, flags interest/bias, and recommends a weight...' This gives the agent a clear picture of what the tool will do beyond the annotation alone.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states the action and scope, second explains methodology/output, third gives usage context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, how it does it (CRAAP, SIFT, 7-tier cadence), and when to use it. It also describes the output in terms of a weight and provenance label, which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. A minor gap is not explicitly detailing the response structure or edge cases, but for a read-only appraisal tool this is sufficient.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (url, claim, source), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema's own descriptions; it only reinforces that 'source' is the key input by referring to it as 'the source to appraise.'

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Appraise a non-study source... for credibility and provenance.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'appraise-evidence' by calling itself 'the companion' and listing example source types (press release, analyst note, legislation, etc.), making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use for grey literature and for novel or fast-moving topics where peer-reviewed evidence is thin.' It also names the alternative tool (appraise-evidence) as the companion, implying a clear division of labor between appraising studies versus non-study sources.

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