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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that goes beyond those annotations: credentials and provider connection IDs are omitted, results carry updatedAt revisions, and responses are paginated through nextOffset. It does not state auth requirements or the pagination ceiling.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core action, then cover return fields, credential omission, and pagination. No sentence repeats the title or schema, and nothing is wasted.

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 two-optional-parameter list tool, this definition is nearly complete: it explains what is returned, what is withheld for security, and how pagination continues. The output schema already documents the return shape, naming the missing when-to-use guidance is the only real gap.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for limit and offset, and the description only partly compensates: 'Paginated results include nextOffset' signals that pagination exists and that nextOffset drives subsequent calls, but it never explains limit or offset defaults, ranges, or how paging terminates.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the signed workspace's connected source folders and file scopes.' That clearly separates it from read_source_file, search_sources, and preview_source_scope_rules. It never names a sibling tool, so it falls short of 5.

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 an implied usage in 'Scope IDs are workspace-scoped selectors,' which tells an agent that the returned IDs feed other scope-aware tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus search_sources or preview_source_scope_rules, so the agent must infer.

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