list_knowledge_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies list is read-only but doesn't explicitly confirm safety or required permissions. It adds value by detailing output structure (schema_version, status, etc.) but could be more upfront about behavioral traits.

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 with no redundancy. First sentence defines scope, second provides behavioral contract. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, key parameters implicitly, and agent contract. For a listing tool with no required parameters, this is sufficiently complete.

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 50% (locale and output_format have descriptions). The description hints at filtering by 'state' and 'capability' via the list scope, but does not explicitly map these parameters. It adds some meaning but not enough to fully compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 the tool lists 'cataloged pharmacy knowledge sources' and specifies the attributes covered (capabilities, readiness, credential requirements, registration state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are specific queries or calculations.

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 'Agent contract' provides explicit instructions on handling the result (using structuredContent as source of truth, preserving fields). While not explicitly saying when not to use, the context of siblings makes it clear this is for listing sources, not drug-specific queries.

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