import_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by spelling out the concrete contents of the response (source and type enumerations) since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about scoping to the active company or the cost/stability of calling it repeatedly.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and the long enumeration is the payload rather than filler. Slightly dense but nothing redundant.

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 no-required-parameter, read-only enumeration tool with no output schema, listing the returned sources and types is the essential content and it is fully present. The only gap is not tying those values to the import_preview/import_execute workflow.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents companyId as a UUID override that defaults to the active company. The description adds nothing about it, which is acceptable under the baseline-3 rule when the schema does the work.

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 opens with a concrete verb plus resource ('Get available import sources and import types') and then enumerates exactly what is returned, so an agent knows this is a static discovery/enumeration call rather than an import action. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling import_* tools such as import_template or import_preview, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this before import_preview/import_execute to learn valid source and type values, but the description never states that sequencing or says when not to use it. No prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned.

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