list_sources

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by disclosing that the list is exhaustive ('every'), grouped by madhhab, and includes answer counts. These are behavioral traits beyond the safety annotations.

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 with zero waste: the first states the core function, the second gives actionable usage guidance. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 format details are unnecessary. The description covers purpose, scope, grouping, and ties to sibling usage, making it fully adequate for an agent to know when and why to call it.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to explain. The description correctly focuses on what the output provides (grouped list with counts), which still aids the agent in interpreting results.

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 resource (darul ifta indexed by IslamQA.org), with grouping and count detail. It also explicitly ties to searching for valid source values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_fatwas.

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?

Gives clear, explicit use cases ('discover valid source values' and 'see how schools are represented') and implicitly positions it as a prerequisite to search_fatwas. It does not state when not to use it, but the purpose is sufficiently distinct from siblings.

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