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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden. "List" implies a read, but it says nothing about whether sources include pending/failed uploads, whether results are ordered or paginated, or what fields each source carries. For an unannotated tool these omissions are material.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which suits a simple list operation. It is efficient, though so terse that no secondary information (scope of 'indexed', result shape) is surfaced at all.

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 tool is simple: one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema. Even so, the description leaves the agent guessing about pagination and result contents, which is the main remaining gap given no annotations and no output schema to fall back on.

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?

There is a single parameter, workspace_id, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ("Workspace (notebook) UUID"). The description adds the scoping context that sources belong to a workspace, but no extra syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

"List indexed sources in a workspace" gives a specific verb (List) and resource (indexed sources) plus its container scope. An agent can distinguish it from mutation siblings like workspace.add_url_source, though it does not explicitly contrast with workspace.document_status or workspace.search_query, which also touch workspace content.

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 states no conditions for when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the discovery step before adding or querying sources, with nothing in the text confirming that.

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