content_list_content_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context: the operation is deprecated and the reason is "improper usage of query parameters", which warns the agent that parameter behavior is unreliable. It says nothing about result shape or pagination.

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 [DEPRECATED] marker is correctly front-loaded, but the deprecation is then stated three times in four lines (marker, "Deprecated:" plus endpoint, and "Deprecated in favor of ... due to ..."). Rewriting as one sentence would lose nothing.

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 parameters including nested request and pageable objects, no output schema. Because the tool is deprecated, exhaustive parameter explanation is lower value, and the deprecation notice does the most important job. Still, an agent gets no guidance on which filters or pagination fields matter before deciding whether to fall back to this tool.

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 67% and the schema documents most filter fields, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no per-parameter meaning; its only related hint, "improper usage of query parameters", does not explain which parameters or how they are misused.

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?

"Get content sources" essentially restates the tool name (content_list_content_sources) and does not describe the rich filtering surface shown in the schema (ids, name, search, projectIds, repository, contentType, syncEnabled, integrationId). With a sibling named content_list_content_source as well as content_get_content_source, no distinction is drawn between them.

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 does explicitly steer away from this tool: "Deprecated: Use /content/api/sources/list". However, the recommended replacement is a raw URL, not one of the sibling tool names, so an agent cannot reliably map it to a callable tool. There is no positive guidance on when this tool would still be appropriate.

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