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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: what is returned (org-level plus client-owned sources and curated views) and how the output is consumed downstream. It omits pagination/volume expectations, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with the resource scope before the usage trigger, with no filler. The trailing API reference URL is useful but slightly dilutes tightness.

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 does the work of describing the return content (sources plus curated views with keys) and the downstream call. What remains thin is parameter selection guidance for client/client_id, but otherwise the definition is complete for a read-only listing tool.

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 only 50%: 'client' is described but client_id carries merely a format/pattern with no prose. The description says results are scoped to a client but never explains how client vs client_id relate or which to supply, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 external data sources connected to a client') and clarifies scope as organization sources plus the client's own, plus the curated views available. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_client_context, list_integrations, and query_context_source without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit trigger condition is given ('when the shared brief is not enough and the answer likely lives in the agency's own systems'), with concrete examples of the target systems. It also names the follow-up action, telling the agent the returned view keys are passed to query_context_source, which establishes the workflow chain.

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