Source Status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing per-source reporting semantics: public boards always report available, LinkedIn surfaces reachability and throttle state, letting a caller distinguish 'not configured' from 'quota spent'. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool reports, followed by the per-source detail. Every clause earns its place, though the second sentence is on the long side and could be tightened.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it usefully characterizes the semantics of the reported statuses. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool this is close to complete; only explicit usage framing is missing.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it correctly focuses on output semantics instead.

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 resource and scope: it reports which sources are configured and remaining quota. It is clearly a diagnostic/status tool distinguishable from sibling search/board tools, though it never names a sibling to reinforce 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 — a caller would use this to check configuration and quota, and the 'not configured' vs 'quota spent' distinction hints at the diagnostic use case. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the sibling tools.

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