list_data_sources

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantive behavioral context beyond that: the exact pagination envelope {total, offset, has_more, items}, the default page size (20) and hard cap (200), and the fact that `contains` is evaluated server-side against the items' own fields. That is meaningful contract detail an agent could not get from annotations alone.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the return/pagination contract. Every clause adds information; the only minor cost is density, with several facts compressed into a single trailing sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the return envelope and paging semantics, and it covers the filter and size limits an agent needs to call this correctly. Remaining gaps (offset semantics, error behavior) are minor for a read-only list tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely meets it: it documents limit's default and max, and explains `contains` as a server-side text filter with concrete examples (CVE id, product name). Offset is not defined directly, though it is legible from the returned pagination shape, leaving one parameter only partially covered.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List data sources') and goes further by defining what a data source is ('PowerShell scripts agents run to feed reports'), which separates it from sibling list_reports/list_report_data. It never names an alternative tool to route between, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 offers real usage advice — use `contains` as a server-side text filter and 'check `total` before paging through everything' to avoid over-fetching. However, there is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_reports, get_data_source, or other siblings, and no exclusion guidance.

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