list_lead_sources

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions '[tier: readonly-owner]' which suggests permission/access requirements, and maps to GET (implying non-destructive). However, it doesn't describe pagination, ordering, or response shape for a list operation. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the method mapping.

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?

Single sentence with examples, endpoint mapping, and tier tag. Efficient and front-loaded with the purpose. Slightly dense with the bracket metadata but no wasted words. Effective for such a simple tool.

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 0-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states what it returns, gives representative examples of lead sources, and indicates the endpoint. It doesn't describe result limits or sort order, but for a lookup-style tool this is acceptable. Tier tag adds access context.

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 0 parameters, so there is nothing for a description to document. Per the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description correctly emphasizes the scope (configurable lead source types) which is the only semantic element. A 5 is appropriate given there are no parameters to clarify.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('List the configured lead sources'), distinguishes itself from siblings like list_leads by specifying lead source configuration (Google Ads, Referral, Door Hanger). Maps to an explicit endpoint. Not a full 5 as it doesn't explicitly distinguish from list_materials or other list tools beyond examples.

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 '[tier: readonly-owner]' tag implies read-only usage scope. No explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance, but the tool is simple and self-evident (listing configured sources), so context is reasonably implied by the name and examples. No exclusions mentioned.

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