list_watchnow_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only the endpoint path and adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. There is no contradiction, but also no added transparency value.

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 very short and front-loaded, which is good. The endpoint line 'GET /watchnow/sources' is mildly redundant with the tool name but does add the explicit HTTP method and route. It is concise with no meaningful filler.

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 low complexity, no parameters, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool. The only gap is the missing distinction from the country-specific sibling, which prevents a perfect score.

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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none. No additional semantic information is required.

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 a verb and resource: 'Get watch now sources.' It is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate this from the sibling get_watchnow_sources_by_country_code, so an agent must infer that this is the unfiltered or general variant.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of the country-specific sibling or any conditions that would select one over the other. The description gives no context for routing the agent's choice.

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