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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. Beyond that, the description adds useful output context by saying each source includes license and refresh information, which is especially valuable because no output schema is provided. It does not describe ordering or pagination, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the two key source attributes. There is no unnecessary wording or repetition.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter read-only listing tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and names the main returned fields. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning whether the list is paginated or ordered, but no major gap prevents correct invocation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List,' with a clear resource, 'where the surrogacy agency data comes from,' and further specifies that each source includes license and refresh information. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_listing, search_listings, list_categories, and list_places, which handle different resources.

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 the tool is used when an agent needs provenance or source metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. For a zero-parameter metadata listing tool this is minimally adequate, but there is no explicit routing guidance.

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