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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying each source includes its status (draft, active, paused) and mapping steps, but it does not discuss pagination, ordering, or authorization requirements.

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 concise statement with zero wasted words, and it front-loads the core resource definition before listing examples and returned fields. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter list tool.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with rich annotations, the description explains the entity being listed and the key fields returned. It is nearly complete, though it could improve by mentioning whether all sources are returned and how this tool relates to the event and revision listing siblings.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document beyond the schema. The baseline score of 4 applies.

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 identifies the resource as incoming-event sources, specifically external systems that send events to the account, and gives examples such as forms, shops, and payment providers. It also states the returned fields (status and mapping steps), which distinguishes it from event-level or revision-level siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 defines what the tool lists but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to siblings such as list_event_connection_events or list_event_connection_revisions. An agent can infer that it is for browsing incoming-event sources, but the definition leaves alternative selection entirely unstated.

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