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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful scoping context ('synchronized', 'permitted for this connection') and notes freshness/status fields, but says nothing about rate limits, ordering, or pagination; with an output schema present, return detail is not required.

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, zero filler, and the scoping constraint plus the sequencing instruction are both front-loaded. Nothing repeats the tool name or the schema.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema already describing the returned fields, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. The only omission is explicit routing against siblings like list_tables.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gap.

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 and resource ('List ... data sources') with a clear scope qualifier ('synchronized', 'permitted for this connection'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_tables by naming sources rather than tables, but never explicitly differentiates from its siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule: use this before choosing a table. That is real decision guidance, though it stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when this should not be used.

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