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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, it provides no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, response format, or whether results are ordered. The description adds nothing beyond the annotation and leaves the agent guessing about the output structure.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and is appropriately sized for a simple list operation. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It does not state what fields are returned by default, how the 'fields' parameter interacts with the response, or whether results are paginated. The naming inconsistency between 'sources' and 'institutions' further complicates usage. Without an output schema or additional guidance, an agent may not know what to expect from the response.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention 'limit' or 'fields' at all, nor their effects. The agent must infer from parameter names, which is risky. This is a significant gap because the tool has two optional parameters that control result count and field selection.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List the institutions available in this catalog.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like seneca_list_snapshots and seneca_search_courses by focusing on institutions. However, the tool name says 'sources' while the description says 'institutions,' which could cause minor confusion, so it loses a point.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the go-to for enumerating institutions, nor does it reference any sibling tool or scenario where another list/search tool would be preferred. The description is purely declarative with no context for selection.

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