list_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden itself. It is a zero-parameter list call, so the risk profile is low, but the description says nothing about whether the catalog is static or live, whether it is paginated or scoped, or what the entries contain. Adequate but thin for an unannotated 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and enumerating exactly the three returned categories; no filler to cut.

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 enumeration tool with no output schema, the description should give at least a hint of what comes back, and it does: feeds, regions, and topics. It falls short only in not explaining how an agent should use those returned values downstream.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and fully covered, and nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 specific verb ('List') and names the three things returned: configured feeds, supported regions, and topics. It is clearly a metadata/discovery tool, which distinguishes it in spirit from the get_*_news and search_* siblings, but it never explicitly draws that contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is how you discover valid source/region/topic values before calling get_source_news or the get_*_news tools. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of calling this first to enumerate valid arguments, and no exclusions.

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