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, non-open-world listing operation. The description adds useful context about what each source entry contains, license and refresh details, but does not describe return shape, pagination, or any other operational behavior.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that states the resource and the key returned fields with no redundant or filler content.

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 list tool with rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource and the per-source metadata returned. It could be stronger if it clarified the return format or whether the list is exhaustive, especially since there is no output schema.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 gives a specific verb, 'List', and a clear resource, 'sources', and further specifies that it returns license and refresh information for each source. It separates itself from siblings by resource, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_categories or list_places.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need provenance, license, or refresh metadata about the AI agency data sources. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of sibling tools.

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