Get a research source

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

The description adds return behavior ('Returns null-ish when no such source exists') beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict annotations. However, it could disclose potential errors or output size limits.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and input, the second explains a critical behavior (null return). Front-loaded and efficient.

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 read-only tool with 2 required params and no output schema, the description explains what it returns (raw text + citation fields) and null behavior. Minor gap: no specification of output format or limitations.

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 description mentions 'slug (or title — it gets slugified)' which adds meaning to the slug parameter beyond the schema. However, the project parameter is completely undocumented in the description, and schema coverage is only 50%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 clearly states 'Read one source's full raw text + citation fields', specifying the verb (Read), resource (source), and scope (by slug or title). It distinguishes from siblings like list_sources and add_source.

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 implies usage (by slug or title) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings such as search_kb or list_sources. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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