french_associations_get_sources

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List curated sources' without describing the return format, ordering, size, or any side effects. This is a minimal, incomplete picture for an agent deciding whether and how to call the tool.

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, concise sentence that wastes no words. 'List curated sources used by this MCP' is front-loaded and directly states the action and object, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is adequate but not rich. It does not specify what the 'sources' are (e.g., names, URLs, or IDs) or how they might be used by the agent. Since the tool appears to be a simple listing, more detail about the content of the list would improve completeness, but it is not severely lacking.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because the description still clarifies the resource being listed ('curated sources'), which adds meaningful context beyond the empty schema.

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 'List' and a specific resource: 'curated sources used by this MCP.' It is distinct from siblings like fetch_source_excerpt or search_datasets, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them, relying on the term 'curated sources' to imply a different scope.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the context in which listing sources would be useful, nor does it exclude any cases. The agent is left to infer that this might be a preliminary step, but nothing explicit supports that.

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