hires_list_sources

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'list' implicitly indicates a read-only, non-mutating operation, but the description does not disclose other behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, or scoping details. It adds minimal beyond the action itself.

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 concise at two sentences: 'List candidate sources for the company. Use for attribution sync and reporting consistency.' It front-loads the action and resource, then adds a clear use case without any unnecessary detail.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and target use. It could mention the return type or that it lists all sources, but the verb 'list' makes the outcome predictable. The use case statement adds useful context for selection.

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 input schema has a single parameter (company_id) with a description that covers its semantics fully (100% schema coverage). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 starts with 'List candidate sources for the company,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It clearly identifies the resource (candidate sources) and scope (for the company), making it distinct from other list tools in the sibling set.

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 provides explicit context on when to use this tool: 'Use for attribution sync and reporting consistency.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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