list_sources

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the whole disclosure burden; it does signal a read-only listing operation by saying it 'shows' sources, which is the main behavioral fact. It says nothing about whether results depend on an API key being set (a sibling, set_kosis_key, implies that dependency exists) or how many sources are returned.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the action and names both outputs (sources and example indicators). Nothing is wasted, though the phrase '지표 예시' remains vague about how much indicator detail is included.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke it. It still leaves open what the response shape is and whether it is a discovery step that should precede kosis_items or find_data.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter meaning to convey. The description correctly implies a parameterless call, matching the baseline for zero-param tools.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: it shows the available statistical data sources plus example indicators. That is specific enough to know what comes back, but it never distinguishes this from siblings such as list_bundled_data, kosis_items, or find_data, so an agent cannot route between them from the text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The word 'available' (쓸 수 있는) hints that it surfaces sources usable with the current configuration, but nothing states when an agent should call this instead of kosis_search or find_data.

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