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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results are grouped by domain and include operations, which is mild context on the return shape but nothing about result size, pagination, or freshness; with output schema present and annotations carrying safety, a 3 fits.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose and scope front-loaded, no filler. The trailing 'Start here' earns its place as a routing cue.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers what is listed and how it is grouped. It could be more complete by pointing to the natural next tools (ireland_describe/ireland_call), but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single 'domain' parameter is fully documented with its enum. The description merely restates the same seven domain values in prose, adding no syntax, semantics, or default behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('List') and resource ('sources and their operations'), plus the grouping axis (domain). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings via 'Start here', signaling it is the discovery entry point rather than an invocation tool like ireland_call, though it never names a sibling outright.

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?

'Start here' is a genuine, if terse, usage cue telling the agent to reach for this before other Ireland tools. However, it gives no explicit when-not condition, no mention that fetch/ireland_describe/ireland_call are the follow-on steps, and no guidance on when to supply a domain versus listing everything.

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