list_data_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's marginal value beyond that is the setup-ordering advice and the hint that results expose gaps (files not yet imported) rather than failures. It says nothing about result size, cost, or whether the report degrades before data is imported.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns in a scannable enumeration; the second delivers the one behavioral instruction. Nothing here could be removed without losing information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and with full annotation coverage it needn't restate safety — so the remaining burden is workflow positioning, which "call this first when setting up" handles. The one gap is what an agent should do when the output shows unimported files, which is left implicit.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for; the schema is empty and fully covered. Baseline 4 applies.

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 pairs a concrete verb with an enumerated resource: it states the tool shows loaded data and lists exactly what that reveals (mode, row counts, date ranges, contract versions, mapping profiles, unimported files). That makes the tool distinguishable from siblings like list_contract_versions or preview_import, though it never names a sibling 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?

"Call this first when setting up" is explicit, actionable timing guidance and is front-loaded at the point of decision. It lacks any when-not guidance or named alternative — it doesn't clarify, for example, when to use list_contract_versions instead for version-only questions — so it falls short of a 5.

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