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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the HTTP endpoint (GET /sources), which simply duplicates the readOnly annotation rather than contributing new behavioral context such as pagination limits or result shape.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and its meaning. The trailing "GET /sources" is slightly redundant with the readOnly annotation but is cheap and harmless.

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, no-required-parameter list tool this is close to adequate, and pagination is hinted at via the offset schema text. However, with no output schema, the description says nothing about the returned structure (list of source objects, IDs vs names), leaving the agent to guess at the response shape.

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%: both limit and offset are documented in the schema, including the instruction to pass the previous reply's next_offset. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (lead/deal sources of the account), and the parenthetical "where records come from" disambiguates the term 'sources'. It is distinguishable from siblings like teamgate_list_lead_statuses and teamgate_list_industries, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this is the lookup for source values, which is only weakly implied by the description.

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