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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the result is deployment-specific and includes per-adapter config field definitions, signaling this is a static introspection/reference call. No pagination or caching caveats, but none are needed for a small config listing.

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, zero waste, with the payload description front-loaded and the usage hint second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 zero-param, read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (adapters plus their config fields) and when to call it. Slightly more on the shape of the returned config fields would make it airtight, but it is sufficient to call correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description's mention of 'config fields each takes' frames what the agent will get back rather than adding parameter detail, which is appropriate here.

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+resource: it enumerates 'every adapter this deployment can run' along with 'the config fields each takes', which tells an agent exactly what the call yields. It is distinguishable from the nearby list_sources/list_enrichers siblings by the 'adapter' resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

'Use before add_source' gives an explicit sequencing condition that routes the agent correctly. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or alternatives (e.g., list_sources once sources already exist).

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