list_sources_for_place

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it defines the three possible outcomes (has a portal, 'no-portal-exists', 'not-in-registry') and crucially explains that 'not-in-registry' means unchecked rather than absent — a distinction an agent would otherwise misinterpret. It does not cover response shape or ordering, but the state semantics are a real addition.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope statement followed by the outcome semantics. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical place-type list is slightly redundant with the schema examples but not wasteful.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain what comes back — and it does, listing the four categories of sources and the three status outcomes. Only minor gaps remain, such as output structure or whether results are grouped by category.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema examples already cover county, city, borough, and region forms, so the description's mention of those place types largely restates existing schema information. It adds only marginal meaning, such as implying that statewide sources can be excluded via the boolean parameter; baseline 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 names a specific resource scope ("Everything the registry knows for one New York place") and enumerates exactly what is returned: the place's own portal(s), sources for cities inside it, regional sources, and statewide sources covering it. This makes the scope distinguishable in practice from a generic search tool, though it never names the closest sibling (find_sources) to draw the contrast 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?

Usage is implied by the framing (look up all registry knowledge for a given place), and the place-type enumeration hints at accepted inputs. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over find_sources or check_source, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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