List ticket sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value by disclosing the data-source quirk: no dedicated Freshservice endpoint exists, so values are read from the ticket form's 'source' field. It also sketches the response shape, which annotations cannot convey; auth or rate-limit behavior is not covered.

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 tight sentences: the purpose and downstream use come first, the return shape and implementation caveat second. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padded.

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?

For a zero-required-param read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and complete annotations, this description covers what it returns, why it exists, and the underlying data quirk. No gaps remain that would cause a misinvocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter (workspace_id) is fully documented in the schema, including its default and the special '0 means all workspaces' semantics. The description adds nothing about workspace scoping, 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 ('List ticket sources (channels), built-in and custom') and immediately ties the output to a downstream consumer ('the numeric IDs create_ticket expects'). The mention of the /ticket_fields/sources workaround also distinguishes it from the sibling get_ticket_fields tool.

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 purpose clause makes the use case explicit: fetch valid source IDs before calling create_ticket. That is clear contextual routing, though it stops short of naming exclusions or an explicit alternative tool to use when sources aren't needed.

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