Osint List Sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it accurately conveys a read-only listing operation. It also discloses that the tool surfaces API-key configuration status, which is useful context. It doesn't explicitly say whether actual key values are shown, but the phrasing implies configured status, not secrets.

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, compact sentence with no wasted words. The primary action comes first and every clause conveys useful information.

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-parameter utility tool with an output schema present, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and what to expect. It gives the essential outcome without needing extra explanation.

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 no parameters, so the schema already fully covers this dimension. The description adds value by clarifying what the returned information will include: data sources, free status, and API-key configuration.

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 ('List') with a specific resource ('all data sources') and additionally tells the agent what aspects are reported: free status and API-key configuration. This clearly distinguishes it from the many lookup-oriented sibling tools such as dns_lookup and whois_domain.

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 makes the tool's role clear as a meta-level enumeration tool rather than a data lookup tool. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps with its purpose of listing sources and API-key configuration status.

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