list_ingestion_sources

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: results are permission-scoped to the current API key. It does not detail pagination or response shape, but for a parameterless list operation this is a minor gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the main action and scope are immediately clear.

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 parameterless list operation with annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it states the resource, the scope, and the outcome. No additional invocation decisions are needed, and the absence of an output schema is acceptable given the simple list semantics.

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 fully covers the interface. The description's mention of 'current API key' adds meaningful context about implicit scoping without needing to document any parameter details.

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 ingestion sources', plus an explicit scope ('accessible to the current API key'). This is clearly distinct from sibling tools that operate on emails, archives, or stats.

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?

Provides clear context by scoping results to the current API key's accessible sources, which tells the agent this is an enumeration operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource name is distinctive enough to make the intended use obvious.

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