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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a notable behavior: broken sources are deliberately included. It also describes the return fields ('what it covers, when last read, row count, how count was checked'), adding transparency about the output. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only list tool this is adequate.

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, each earning its place: purpose, return content, and a key behavioral caveat. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main return fields and the purposeful inclusion of broken sources. It could mention pagination or sort order, but the schema already covers limit and the tool's simplicity reduces the need for more.

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 75%, so the description has some responsibility. The description does not explain individual parameters beyond what the schema provides; however, it indirectly references status by noting broken sources are included, which maps to the status enum. The query/bundle/limit params are already documented in the schema, so the description adds little parameter-specific nuance.

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 clearly states the action ('Search or browse') and the resource ('sources Licium maintains'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_source by emphasizing the list/reporting nature. The added detail about what each source entry contains further specifies the tool's output and purpose.

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?

The description implies usage for searching/browsing the sources list but does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like get_source or source_report. It provides context (e.g., 'broken sources are included on purpose') but no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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