get_sources

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only provides a label, omitting any mention of side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. The simple name implies a read, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise at two words, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It efficiently communicates a general topic but under-delivers on informative content. A single sentence could improve value without losing conciseness.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It merely names the resource (sources) without explaining what constitutes a source, how they are organized, or the tool's purpose in the broader system. This is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4 per instructions. However, the description only adds a basic label ('Traffic/lead sources') without enriching the schema's empty structure. It provides minimal meaning, warranting a slight reduction to 3.

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 'Источники трафика/лидов' (Traffic/lead sources) is a noun phrase that vaguely restates the tool name. It lacks a verb and does not specify what the tool does beyond identifying it as sources, making it borderline tautological.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_leads or get_contacts. With 17 sibling tools, the absence of usage context makes selection difficult.

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