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

The description discloses that only 'active' sources are returned and that output includes 'brand attribution', which is behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also documents 'cursor' as an opaque pagination token, adding detail about pagination 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ending with a concise parameter explanation. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and cursor semantics. The absence of page_size explanation is a minor gap but does not significantly hinder invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates partially by explaining the 'cursor' parameter as an opaque pagination cursor. However, it does not explain 'page_size', leaving one of two parameters undocumented in the description. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory but not explicitly covered.

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 clearly states the tool lists 'active news-parsing sources (hosts)' with 'brand attribution', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_news and list_jobs.

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 implies usage: use this to get active news-parsing sources. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools like list_news are not referenced.

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