gr_fin_list_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'lists' data sources, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, discuss side effects, or mention any required permissions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the entire purpose without redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by qualifiers. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no required inputs), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (names and descriptions) and the scope (HCMC and Bank of Greece sourcebook categories). Although there is no output schema, the description covers the return value sufficiently.

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 zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (none needed). The description does not need to add parameter info because there are none. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adequately explains what the tool returns without referencing parameters.

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 all data sources, specifies the categories (HCMC and Bank of Greece sourcebook categories), and indicates the output includes names and descriptions. The verb 'list' and resource 'data sources' are precise, and the mention of specific categories distinguishes it from the sibling gr_fin_list_sourcebooks.

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 implicitly suggests use when a list of data sources is needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context. For a zero-parameter tool, minimal guidance is acceptable, but the lack of exclusions or prerequisites is a gap.

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