Get Source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description's 'Read operation' simply restates it. The base URL and stage/version context add a little value, but error behavior (e.g. unknown id) and return shape are not disclosed.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and does the real work in a single line. The trailing base URL markup and 'Read operation' segment are slightly noisy and redundant with the annotations, keeping it out of 5.

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 simple two-parameter read with no output schema, 'details and status' gives a rough sense of the return, which is adequate. It does lack specifics on response fields and failure modes, so it is minimum-viable rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, covering both id and account, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that lookup is by id and adds nothing about the optional account parameter's effect on credentials/environment beyond what the schema already says.

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 (fetch) and resource (source file details and status) keyed by id, which clearly distinguishes it from list_sources, ingest_source, and delete_source. It does not explicitly name siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_sources (to enumerate) or get_asset (for rendered assets). Usage is only implied by 'by its id'.

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