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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by specifying what kind of data is returned and by indicating through the live parameter that a live corpus loading path is used when live=true. No annotation contradiction exists.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then lists the concrete output fields, keeping the definition compact and scannable.

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?

The description names the output fields explicitly, which is important because there is no output schema. It is complete enough for a read-only metadata-listing tool with fully documented optional parameters, though it could have noted why one would inspect the source list before using related policy tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds no further parameter-level semantics; it only mentions 'live 지원 여부' as an output field, not as an input behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: returning the list of official sources queried by the academic RAG, and enumerates the inspectable fields (URL, contentUrl, revision/effectiveDate, live support, verification date). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_academic_policy_sources, which is about searching/policy content rather than listing source metadata.

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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_academic_policy_sources or get_academic_policy_brief. The only usage-related hint is within the parameter description ('list only' recommends false/omitting live), which concerns parameter selection, not tool selection.

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