list_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state what the tool reports (enabled state, remaining quota, outage status), which conveys a read-only intent, but it never explicitly says the operation is non-mutating or describes side-effect implications. An output schema exists to cover the return shape, but the description adds only the status facets.

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, front-loaded French sentence conveys the core purpose efficiently with no filler. It could feasibly add usage nuance, but for a parameterless status tool the brevity is reasonable and 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?

An output schema is present, so return-value structure is covered by structured data, and there are no parameters to document. The main gap is the absence of guidance on when to invoke it relative to the pricing siblings; for an agent to use it correctly, that routing context would make it complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain; schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Per the baseline for a zero-parameter tool, a 4 is appropriate since the description need not compensate for any undocumented inputs.

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 states a clear verb-plus-resource purpose: report the status of each source, listing the exact status facets it exposes (enabled, remaining hourly quota, active outage). This is specific enough to be useful. It distinguishes from the pricing siblings implicitly, though it never names them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus price_project or best_price. An agent must infer from the sibling names (which relate to pricing) that this status tool serves a different purpose. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering, or situations where this tool should not be used.

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