List Sources and Taxonomy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a valuable behavioral guarantee: 'Never exposes secrets.' This provides context beyond the structured annotations and reassures the agent about data sensitivity, though it doesn't mention return-format or size limits.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists all output categories and ends with a critical safety note. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the major content areas (sources, storage status, taxonomy, research runs), which sufficiently conveys what the agent can expect. It doesn't specify exact formats, but for a no-parameter listing tool, this coverage is strong enough. Missing a little detail on how 'recent' is defined, but acceptable.

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, so the schema provides complete coverage at 100%. With no parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric; the description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly focuses on what the tool returns.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and enumerates exactly what the tool lists: connected and planned sources, storage status, AI employee taxonomy, and recent research runs. This clearly distinguishes it from the more focused sibling tools (search_meta_ads, analyze_competitor_ads, etc.) which target single operations.

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 implies this is the overview tool for seeing all sources and related metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of a sibling or provide alternative suggestions. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.

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