content_list_content_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety behavior needs no restating. The description adds the non-obvious constraint that the request parameter must be URL encoded, which is real added value, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume for what is clearly a paged list endpoint.

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?

Three short lines with the encoding caveat and endpoint front-loaded, no filler. Minor redundancy in restating the endpoint path alongside a near-tautological opening line, but nothing wasteful enough to penalize further.

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?

Six optional parameters, a nested filter object, and no output schema mean the description should at least signal what a listing returns and how paging/sorting compose. It stays silent on those, relying on an 83%-covered schema and annotations that cover only the safety profile.

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 83%, so the schema itself documents page, size, sort and every nested request field, fixing the baseline at 3. The description contributes only the URL-encoding requirement for the nested request object and adds no filter-combination semantics (AND vs OR) beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb+resource ('Get content sources') plus the raw endpoint (GET /content/api/sources/list) makes it a list/query operation. However, with close siblings named content_list_content_sources and content_get_content_source, the description does nothing to distinguish itself from them — an agent cannot tell from prose which of the three to pick.

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?

'Use filter parameters to narrow down the results' is a genuine usage hint about how to constrain the call, and the URL-encoding note is an invocation prerequisite. But there is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to the singular get or plural list siblings.

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