singapore_get_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the 'reads public information; no account mutation tools' sentence largely restates structured data. It adds modest value by flagging that API key requirements are reported, but says nothing about freshness, coverage of sources, or how keys are presented.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is partly redundant with the annotations but still earns a small place by delimiting server 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 read tool with a full annotation set and an output schema, the description covers what the call returns conceptually (sources, docs, key requirements). Only the relationship to other discovery tools is left unaddressed.

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 disambiguate; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. The description correctly implies a full listing rather than a filtered lookup.

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?

States a concrete verb ('List') and a concrete resource set: connected official data sources, documentation, and API key requirements. That is more specific than a title restatement, though it does not distinguish itself from discovery-oriented siblings such as singapore_get_capabilities or singapore_find_relevant_tools.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The sentence 'This server reads public information; no account mutation tools' is a scope/reassurance note rather than a routing rule, leaving the agent to guess whether to call this or singapore_get_capabilities first.

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