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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'authoritative' — it says nothing about result ordering, default page size, or what a source entry contains, which would be the value-add beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves the parameter gaps noted above unaddressed.

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 tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and an unenumerated 'type' parameter, the description should at minimum define the filter values and mention pagination via 'limit'. It does neither, so an agent cannot call it confidently beyond the bare country filter.

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 carry all parameter meaning. It maps 'country' and loosely maps 'type' to 'institution type', but leaves 'limit' (1-100) entirely undocumented and gives no hint about valid 'type' values — the schema has no enum, so an agent has no way to know what strings are accepted.

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?

Names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('authoritative Abyar research/data sources'), which distinguishes it from retrieval siblings like abiyar_get_knowledge_cards or abiyar_get_provenance. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by country or institution type' implies when the filters apply, but there is no statement of when to choose this over sibling lookups (e.g. get_knowledge_cards, search_evidence) or any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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