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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description reinforces that by framing it as a plain GET on /sources. It adds nothing about pagination behavior (beyond what the schema says), result ordering defaults, total counts, or auth requirements, so it is adequate but thin on 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource being listed; nothing is redundant. It is written as telegraphic fragments ('Scope: source. GET /sources.') rather than full clauses, but every fragment carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description could have said what a returned source record contains or whether the list is paginated by default, and it does neither. The schema fully covers inputs, so the gap is limited to the return side, but it leaves the agent guessing about result 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% and all four parameters (page, sort, filter, page_size) are documented inline in the schema, including the nested filter comparison enum and examples. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

The description says precisely what is returned: a list of sources (job boards, referrals), and it names the resource scope ('Scope: source') plus the underlying endpoint (GET /sources). That is enough to distinguish it from the candidate-specific sibling traffit_get_candidate_sources, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this instead of traffit_get_candidate_sources, traffit_list_candidates, or any other list tool. 'Scope: source' hints at the resource boundary but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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