Get sources for a release

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `openWorldHint: true`, so the agent knows this is a safe, side-effect-free read operation. The description adds the semantic context that sources 'publish' the release, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as handling of realtime parameters or possible empty results. Since the safety profile is already covered by annotations, the description is minimally adequate but does not go beyond that.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence followed by a useful example. Every word earns its place, and the example adds concrete operational guidance without bloat. This is a model of concise, structured description writing.

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 tool is a simple retrieval operation with an output schema that presumably documents the return structure, so the description need not explain return values. However, the complete omission of realtime parameter semantics leaves a contextual gap, especially for an API with FRED-specific concepts. The description is enough for a basic understanding but not fully self-contained for an agent new to FRED.

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 has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only implicitly clarifies `release_id` through the example (`release_id=10`), but `realtime_start` and `realtime_end` are entirely unexplained. With no schema descriptions for these parameters, an agent unfamiliar with FRED's realtime conventions would be left guessing at their meaning and usage.

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 the tool's function: 'Get sources that publish a FRED release.' It includes a concrete example call (`get_release_sources(release_id=10)`) and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `get_source_releases` (which goes in the opposite direction) and `list_sources` (which lists all sources).

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 provides clear context: you use this tool when you have a release ID and need to know which sources publish it. The example reinforces the expected input. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name direct alternatives, though the sibling tool list and the directional wording ('sources that publish a release') make the intended usage fairly obvious.

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