list_governed_communication_sources

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral caveat about returning no content or UUID, but does not disclose pagination behavior, error conditions, or what 'bounded' means in practice.

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 sentence and wastes no words. The key caveat about returning no content/UUID is front-loaded after the core action. Slight deduction for 'bounded opaque' being unclear jargon, but overall the structure is efficient.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, the description does not explain parameter semantics, pagination expectations, or how this tool relates to sibling approval tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable selection and invocation.

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 description adds no information about company_ref, project_ref, limit, or cursor. The agent must infer the meaning of the required refs entirely from their names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 specifies the operation ('List') and the resource ('Gmail approval sources'), and the added 'no content or UUID is returned' helps differentiate it from detail-returning tools like get_governed_communication_run or get_approval_details. However, 'bounded opaque' is jargon and the description does not state what is actually returned, so it is not fully self-explanatory.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description implies that content and UUIDs are not returned, which hints that this is not for fetching details, but it does not name alternatives or state the intended use case for listing approval sources.

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