find_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds useful scope facts — 114 sources and the geographic coverage — plus that each entry carries 'what it holds and how to search it well', but says nothing about result shape, pagination, or how 'include_worldwide' changes behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb + resource first, then scope. It is efficient overall, though the long geographic enumeration (former USSR, Caucasus, Central Asia, Europe, Americas, Australia...) is the least value-dense portion.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not owed, and the description covers purpose, filters and catalog breadth. It remains thin on when to prefer this over the related source/search siblings and on the semantics of include_worldwide and limit, leaving the agent to infer those.

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 63%, with descriptions for text, country and records but not for lang, limit, year_from/year_to, or include_worldwide. The description echoes the country/period/records axes but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so it neither compensates nor regresses.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find genealogy databases and archives' for a given country/region, period and record kind. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like source_details (per-source detail) and where_are_records, though it never names a sibling to draw the line explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the named filter axes (country or region, period, kind of records), which tells the agent roughly when the tool applies. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, e.g. no rule for choosing find_sources over search_online or source_details.

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