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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does reveal useful output context (status, last run, item counts) and the optional collection scoping, but it does not state whether all sources are returned when collection is omitted, nor any ordering, pagination, or side-effect behavior.

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 short sentences with no filler; the key output fields and optional filter are front-loaded. Slightly telegraphic because it lacks a main verb, but it is compact and scannable.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields and the filter dimension. It is adequate, though it leaves unspecified details like the default scope when collection is absent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms the collection parameter is optional and appears in the same role as the schema example, but does not add substantial meaning beyond what the input schema already states.

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 makes clear the resource (sources) and the output (status, last run, item counts), and the optional collection filter. It lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_feeds or list_collections, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 guidance is given on when to choose list_sources over list_feeds, list_collections, or run_source. The only usage hint is the optional collection parameter, which implies filtering, but there are no exclusions or alternative routing.

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