list_income_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or idempotent, but as a list operation it is reasonably safe. No mention of authentication, rate limits, or data freshness.

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, front-loading the action and key entities. However, it could be more concise by avoiding the list of items if they are not all equally important.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the relationship between income sources and the other listed items, nor does it describe the output format. The agent may have difficulty interpreting the results.

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%, so the description must explain the parameter 'db_path'. It does not. The parameter is optional and defaults to null, but the agent gets no hint about its purpose or effect on the 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?

The description states the tool lists configured income sources plus related items (schedule versions, review dates, generated horizons), but it's ambiguous whether it lists multiple distinct entities or all these details for each income source. The verb 'List' is clear, but the scope is broader than the name implies.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list tools (e.g., list_obligations, list_guardrail_findings). The description provides no context about scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess.

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