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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real context: it returns unconfigured sources too, and a draft/paused agent does not collect until activated. It also scopes out LinkedIn signal groups, which is a useful boundary. It stops short of describing shape or size of the returned payload.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then routing and behavioral caveats follow in logical order. Six sentences is on the dense side, but nearly every one carries a distinct condition or constraint that an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably explains what comes back (sources including unconfigured ones) and the activation caveat. Combined with the routing guidance, an agent has enough to call and follow up correctly; only the exact return structure is left unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so both agent_id and app_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description only implies the 'one owned agent' scoping and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Read X and Hacker News listening settings for one owned agent') with a clear scope note ('including sources not configured yet'). It is immediately distinguishable from configure_agent_source and set_agent_source_listening, which it names.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use list_agents to find the agent, configure_agent_source when configured is false, and set_agent_source_listening when configured is true and searches exist. The when-to-use branches are fully spelled out with the condition that selects each alternative.

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