list_sources

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

The description discloses that the tool returns source metadata and mentions its purpose (transparency and audit), which conveys it is safe and read-only. No annotations exist, but the description is sufficient for this simple list operation.

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 a single, concise sentence that leads with the action and then specifies return details. Every word earns its place, with no 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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys the purpose, return data, and use case. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 zero parameters, the input schema is fully covered. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains (URLs, licenses, coverage), which is relevant for parameter selection (none needed). Baseline 4 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 clearly specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'all data sources and their provenance'. It also details the returned information (source URLs, licenses, coverage), distinguishing it from sibling tools that search or validate specific legal 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 implies use for transparency and audit compliance but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_legislation or validate_citation. No when-not guidance is provided.

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