sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'bounded' and 'archive' context, implying pagination and historical data, but doesn't disclose behavior like return format, sorting, or what 'sources' means. It's not contradictory but adds limited value beyond annotations.

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?

It's a single concise sentence with no filler, and the key qualifiers ('bounded', 'read-only', 'archive') are front-loaded. It is efficient but perhaps too terse to convey enough meaning. Still, for conciseness it earns a high score on efficiency.

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 simple pagination parameters and no output schema, description should clarify what 'sources' are, the return format, and how to use it. It does none of these, leaving an agent uncertain about the tool's purpose and expected behavior. Incomplete for correct invocation.

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%, so description should compensate by explaining limit and offset. It only says 'bounded', hinting at pagination but not explicitly describing the parameters, their defaults, or how they affect results. This is insufficient for a tool with 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?

Description says 'Sources; bounded read-only archive retrieval.' It identifies a resource (sources) and states it is an archive retrieval with pagination and read-only access. However, it doesn't specify what 'sources' refers to or exactly what retrieval operation is performed (list? get all?), and it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'search' or 'query'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'bounded read-only archive retrieval' but doesn't state scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. It doesn't reference other tools, leaving an agent to infer usage.

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