get_source_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that validate=true triggers an actual key validation request rather than a cached read — useful cost/side-effect context. It does not say whether the call is read-only or stateful, whether validation is rate-limited or slow, or what happens to the reported session counts.

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 tight sentences: the reported contents are front-loaded, and the parameter caveat follows. The enumeration is dense but every listed item is information the agent would otherwise have to call the tool to discover; nothing is padding.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must convey both behavior and returns; the enumeration of reported fields does effectively sketch the response. Gaps remain around the default path, side effects of validation, and its relationship to the similar get_platform_status sibling.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must supply its meaning — and it does, explaining that validate=true corresponds to a real key-validation request that should only be enabled when acceptable. It still does not spell out what validate=false returns versus true, leaving the default path implicit.

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?

Opens with a specific verb ("Report") and then enumerates the resources covered: configured sources, WoS default product, quota/rate status, OpenAlex/Crossref cache state, and in-memory session counts. An agent can tell this is a diagnostics/status tool rather than a search tool, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_platform_status.

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?

Usage guidance is limited to one conditional: "Set validate=true only when an actual key validation request is acceptable," which implies the flag has a real cost. There is no statement about when to call this tool at all versus get_platform_status, and no indication of what the default (validate=false) path returns.

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