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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns short and long names and the underlying endpoint, but it does not discuss pagination behavior, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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 with zero wasted words. The resource and its purpose are front-loaded before the endpoint reference. Every part of the description earns its place.

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 reference-list tool with full schema documentation, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what the tool returns (short and long names) and its intended use. It could mention pagination or that it is meant for populating dropdowns, but those are minor gaps given the structured fields already present.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents page, sort, fields, and per_page. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not compensate further.

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 identifies the exact resource (lead/referral sources with short and long names) and its role in creating or filtering jobs and estimates. The endpoint 'GET /sources' reinforces the operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_job_statuses or list_payment_types by naming the distinct resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

It clearly states the context for use: 'to use when creating or filtering jobs and estimates.' This tells an agent when to call it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is strong for a reference-list tool but stops short of full routing instructions.

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