list_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'flux suivis' — nothing about whether these are the user's own subscriptions, whether the list can be empty, or how results are ordered.

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 telegraphic clauses, purpose first, with no filler. The parameter note is compressed to the point of missing a verb, which costs a little clarity but wastes nothing.

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 exists, so return values need not be described, and the single optional parameter is covered. What is missing is the meaning of the empty/null category default and confirmation that these are followed sources rather than a global catalog — small but real gaps for an otherwise simple tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema only declares an untyped nullable string, so the description carries the real burden. It supplies the three legal values ('ia, data ou cloud'), which the schema omits entirely — a genuine addition — but it does not explain the null/default case (omitting it presumably returns all sources).

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 specific verb and resource ('Liste les flux suivis' — lists the tracked feeds), which is clearly distinct from siblings like latest_news and search_news that return content rather than the source catalog. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to call this versus latest_news, search_news or digest, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The mention of a category value is a parameter detail, not usage direction, so an agent must infer the routing itself.

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