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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing about what an image source is, what credentials are required, or any side effects. With annotations present but zero added context, 2 is appropriate.

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 single sentence is short but entirely redundant with the tool name. It is under-specified rather than concise, so it does not earn its place.

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 complex creation tool with 13 parameters, nested provider objects, and no guidance on source types or required credentials, the description is completely inadequate. Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description fails to orient the agent for this operation.

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 85%, so the schema already documents most parameters, the type enum, and per-provider required fields. The description adds no parameter meaning, but the baseline is 3 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?

The description restates the tool name ('create image source') without adding scope, source types, or distinguishing it from siblings like update_image_source, delete_source, or list_sources. It is a tautology of the name, so it lands at 2.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites such as authentication or source type selection, so it provides no usable usage direction.

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