data_gouv_fr_get_sources

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

The description indicates this is a read-only listing operation ('List'), which is behaviorally informative. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this returns paginated results, the format/schema of the returned sources, whether network calls are made (vs. cached), or if any authentication is required. The term 'List' is helpful but minimal; it meets the baseline without adding beyond the obvious.

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, efficient sentence with no fluff or repetition. 'List curated official and high-value sources for data.gouv.fr.' earns its place by adding qualifying terms ('curated', 'official', 'high-value') that communicate value proposition without being verbose. Perfectly sized for the tool's scope.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does an adequate job: it communicates the action and the resource. The description is likely complete for the tool's purpose, though it could be improved by adding a note about the response format or typical use case (e.g., 'use this to get a list of sources to feed into other tools'). However, gives its simplicity, this is largely sufficient and only a small extra clarification (e.g., what constitutes a 'source') would push it to a 5.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously, with an empty properties object). The description does not need to explain parameters. The description accurately reflects a parameterless list operation, and the sibling tools handle more complex queries. Full credit is appropriate here since there is no parametric burden to clarify.

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 'List curated official and high-value sources for data.gouv.fr' clearly states the tool's action (list) and resource (curated official and high-value sources for data.gouv.fr). The use of 'curated' and 'high-value' adds specificity and helps distinguish it from sibling tools like the search-based tools. Only docking a point because it could further clarify what 'sources' means in this context (e.g., data sources, organizations?) or explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies this is the go-to tool for listing curated sources, which implicitly suggests it's for browsing/high-level discovery rather than targeted search (which would use sibling search tools like data_gouv_fr_search_data_gouv). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, such as for exploring known sources vs. finding specific ones. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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