source_list

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, and the description repeats 'Read-only', which adds nothing new. However, since there is no output schema, the description carries real weight by disclosing the returned field set including cited_by counts and cited_by_ids provenance links, plus the default status filter behavior.

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 dense sentence front-loads the resource and ordering before the field list, and the status default follows immediately. No wasted prose, though the parenthetical asides make it slightly hard to scan.

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 list tool with no output schema, describing the returned fields is the right instinct and mostly done. Gaps remain around the meaning of scope, any limit/pagination semantics, and what happens beyond the pending default, which the description leaves to the agent to guess.

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?

Only one of three parameters is explained: status, with its default and the '*' wildcard clearly stated. Neither limit nor the vague scope parameter is described in the description despite only 33% schema coverage, so the compensation is partial.

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 names the resource (source ledger / Source concepts) and implies listing via the field shape and 'oldest first' ordering, so the agent knows this enumerates sources in order. It never explicitly contrasts with siblings like source_register or search, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

It gives one useful operational rule, that status defaults to pending and '*' returns all, which implies how to widen a query. There is no statement of when to prefer this over alternatives such as search or concept_list, and no exclusions.

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