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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the substantive load: it discloses that counts come from the ClickHouse store, that sources can be active/paused, and what fields come back. It does not mention result size, pagination, or whether paused sources are always included.

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 the purpose, then a one-line explanation of what a source is, then returns, then call ordering. Four sentences each add something, though the trailing two instructions could be merged for tighter flow.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and adds the prerequisite skill call plus call ordering, which is enough to invoke correctly. Minor gaps remain on whether paused sources are returned or how large the list can get.

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% and the schema already explains both projectId and environment, including the list_projects discovery hint. The description's phrase 'configured for this project' only restates the scoping already documented in the schema.

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 ('List the community pulse sentiment sources') and immediately scopes it to the project. It distinguishes itself from both query_sentiment and the similarly named get_community_pulse by describing sources as the configuration/metadata layer rather than the analysis result.

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 tells the agent to call this first to see what data exists before running query_sentiment, and names the prerequisite skill load. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' (e.g., if sources are already known), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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