list_research_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full load. It clearly discloses the output (list of sources with endpoints and costs) and the absence of side effects is implied by its read-only nature, though not explicitly stated. It does not mention potential limitations like pagination or ordering, but for a simple listing tool this is not a significant gap.

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 ~80 words, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then usage context, then parameter detail. Every sentence serves a purpose with zero fluff. It avoids repeating the schema description verbatim and uses structure to guide the agent from 'what' to 'when' to 'how'.

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?

The tool has only one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fully explains what the response contains (platforms, endpoints, params, costs), when to use it, and how to filter. For a discovery tool, this is complete; nothing necessary 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 single parameter 'query' is already described in the schema with its purpose. The description adds specific examples ('ads', 'reddit', 'comments') and clarifies that it filters 'by platform, endpoint, or description', which enhances the schema's generic 'platform, endpoint, or description' and clarifies the exact matching anatomy. This exceeds the baseline for covered parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool 'List[s] the available research sources for social_research', naming the exact resource and action. It enumerates what the list contains (platforms, endpoints, required/optional params, per-call cost) and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'social_research' tool by positioning it as the prerequisite discovery step.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this FIRST whenever you need competitor ads, profiles, posts, comments, transcripts, or platform search and don't already know the exact platform + endpoint + params.' It also provides examples of filter keywords ('ads', 'reddit', 'comments') and implies that social_research should only be called after consultating this list, effectively stating when not to use it.

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