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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by listing the per-source fields returned and by disclosing the structured 'next' guidance emitted on a zero-match query — a behavioral trait not visible in any structured field. Pagination/ordering behavior remains undisclosed.

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, front-loaded with the core action and the returned attributes; the fallback sentence is dense but every clause maps to an action. Slightly list-heavy phrasing but no filler.

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?

All four parameters are optional, no output schema exists, and read-only is annotated — the description fills the important gap by describing return fields and the zero-result behavior. Status-enum semantics and source-count/ordering are left to the schema.

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 75% and already documents limit bounds, query examples, bundle, and the status enum. The description body adds no new meaning about limit, bundle, or status, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb pair and resource ('Search or browse maintained sources') and enumerates the attributes returned, so an agent knows exactly what this lists. It never names the closest sibling (get_source) for contrast, so the list-vs-single distinction must be inferred.

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?

Search vs browse is implied by the presence of 'query', and the empty-result path is spelled out in detail with three named alternatives (request_source, bounty_post, and the open-pot flow). It stops short of saying when to use this tool instead of get_source or source_report.

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