list_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the 'Pack data only — no DB' note, which indicates the tool avoids database access and uses packed data. However, it does not detail auth requirements, pagination, or error behavior. This is moderate transparency, not comprehensive.

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 with no wasted words. It states the core purpose, optional filters, and a behavioral note about data source. Every part contributes value.

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?

This is a simple list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema. The description covers purpose and filter semantics, and with the output schema present, it need not explain return values. The behavioral note adds completeness. No critical information is missing for a tool of this complexity.

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 compensate. It explains that the `countries` and `sectors` parameters act as optional filters using tags, which directly maps to the schema properties. It does not specify the value format (e.g., ISO codes) but the semantic intent is clear.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('List enabled sources') and the specific resource (sources), with an optional filter by country/sector tags. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_matches or list_profiles by focusing on sources. The phrase 'Pack data only — no DB' further clarifies the scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when listing enabled sources, with optional tag filtering. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the intended usage is evident from the purpose statement. A missing explicit alternative recommendation keeps it from a 5.

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