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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description contributes the useful fact that no ingestion occurs, but does not explain pagination, what 'eligibility' means, or how refresh status is derived.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the verb-plus-facets ordering lets the agent triage quickly. It is dense with unexplained jargon ('eligibility', 'publication selection') that slightly undercuts its efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, key domain terms in the description are left undefined and the relationship to neighboring source_* tools is unstated, leaving the definition only minimally viable.

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 only one parameter (agent_id) and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining it comes from agents_list or agent_create. The description adds no additional meaning about the required agent scoping, 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?

The description gives a concrete verb (Lists) plus the specific facets returned: source eligibility, publication selection, and refresh status. The 'without ingestion' clause hints at the boundary with source_read/source_import_* tools, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 no statement of when to pick this over source_read, publication_history, or publication_review. 'Without ingestion' is a vague hint at scope rather than an actionable routing rule, so an agent must infer the use case from the title alone.

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