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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: ordering by id, no pagination, up-to-100 cap, the meaning of an empty result, and the clarification that 'approval' is an internal policy rather than factual verification.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and output shape, then usage routing, then caveats. Dense but each sentence carries information; the empty-list sentence and the approval-policy caveat are the weakest, though both guard against plausible misinterpretation.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema and full annotations, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing: scope, ordering, limits, empty-result semantics, and when not to call it are all covered.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single limit parameter, so the schema already documents default 50 / max 100 / min 1. The description largely restates that (default 50, maximum 100) and its only added value is the 'no pagination' note, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Inspect publishers and licenses in the DatoQA-approved source registry') and enumerates the returned fields (source id, name, homepage_url, license). An agent can immediately distinguish this from list_topics and catalog, so no sibling ambiguity remains.

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?

Explicitly gives the when ('attribution or source selection'), the when-not ('not data retrieval or freshness checks'), and routes to alternatives ('use list_topics to choose a data tool', 'catalog for service capabilities'). It also flags that the call is optional since responses already include citations, which is exactly the sort of routing guidance that prevents unnecessary calls.

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