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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the contents of each returned source (coverage, last read, row count, check method) and the deliberate inclusion of broken sources, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple list.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then item contents, then a deliberate behavior note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully outlines the shape of each returned source and a non-obvious inclusion policy. Combined with well-described parameters, this is sufficiently complete for a listing tool, though it could mention default ordering or response format.

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 already describes limit, query, and bundle explicitly and provides an enum for status (75% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Search or browse the sources Licium maintains'—a specific verb and resource—and the plural 'sources' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_source, which fetches one source.

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 implies usage for searching or browsing the set of sources but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like get_source. The note about broken sources being included is contextual but not a usage directive.

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