get_company_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds value by documenting pagination parameters (limit, offset) and return format (JSON string). It implicitly indicates a read operation, but could explicitly state idempotency.

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 description is front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary and to the point, with no fluff.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, read-only), the description covers retrieval and pagination. The return type is specified as 'JSON string containing company source data,' which is sufficient but could be more detailed about the structure.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: limit (max number, default 50) and offset (pagination skip, default 0), adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states 'Get all company sources for tracking where companies came from,' which specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'company sources,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_contact_sources.

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 implies usage for retrieving company sources but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_company or get_contact_sources. No exclusions or context are given.

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