madagascar_get_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a non-mutating listing action and describes the curation criteria ('official and high-value'), but it does not disclose whether the list is static or fetched live, whether pagination applies, or what kinds of sources are included.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes meaning.

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 simple parameterless list tool, the description is adequate, but it leaves some ambiguity about what counts as a 'source' and what the returned list contains. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the result format or source types would improve completeness.

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 is fully covered, so no parameter explanation is needed from the description. The description adds reasonable semantic context about the source selection, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states that the tool lists curated official and high-value sources for Madagascar, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sources for Madagascar'). It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like madagascar_list_reference_items.

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 about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as madagascar_search_hdx_datasets or madagascar_search_data_gouv. The description implies a general listing purpose but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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