list_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the shape of the returned record (type, status, URL, word count), which is partly duplicative of the output schema and says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior on an empty notebook.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler; the returned fields are packed efficiently. It is perhaps too terse for the tool's role, but nothing is wasted.

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 a fully documented schema and an output schema present, the description need not restate parameters or return values, and it correctly avoids doing so. What remains missing is only the relational context to siblings and any hint about preferred use over search_sources.

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 100%: limit, status, notebook_id (with a pointer to list_notebooks) and source_type are all documented in the schema, including enum-like values and the 1-100 range. The description's mention of "tipo" and "estado" merely echoes two of those parameters without adding format or interaction detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Lista las fuentes de un notebook") plus the fields returned (tipo, estado, URL, nº de palabras), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not name or differentiate itself from close siblings such as search_sources or keyword_search, which keeps it out of the 5 band.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the enumeration path versus search_sources (filtered search) or read_source (content retrieval). No prerequisites or pagination guidance appear in the description.

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