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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the returned payload for both source families (sourceId, name, sourceType, writeKey, enabled status, query/table info), which matters because there is no output schema. It is silent on pagination or result-size limits for a list operation.

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, with the resource and scope front-loaded before usage context and return shape. The second sentence is dense with field enumerations but each item is informative rather than filler; minor trimming of the 'including ... ' clauses would tighten it.

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 and no nested objects, describing the return collections is necessary and is done for both source families. The main residual gap is the required workspace_id parameter and any pagination behavior, which leaves the definition slightly short of fully self-sufficient.

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 67%: retl_type and sourceDefinitionName are richly documented in the schema itself, so the description's 'filtering options by type and definition' adds nothing beyond that. The required workspace_id has no schema description, and the description does not compensate by explaining workspace scoping or expected format.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve all configured sources') and immediately scopes it to two sub-kinds, event-stream and RETL sources, which distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_source. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

It offers usage context ('when you need to see available sources for connecting destinations, analyzing data flow, or managing source configurations'), which is enough to place the tool. However, there is no exclusion guidance telling the agent when to use get_source or get_source_definitions instead, so the when-not half is missing.

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