list_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the conditional filtering behavior, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether the full catalog is returned when sector is omitted — only the existence of an output schema offsets this.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the conditional qualifier second — no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than too long.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and this is a simple one-parameter read. However, nothing defines what a 'source' is or how it relates to the sector values exposed by list_sectors, leaving a real gap for an agent wiring these calls together.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'sector' parameter. It does explain the parameter's effect (restrict results to sources related to that sector) and that it is optional, but adds no format, case-sensitivity, or valid-value guidance.

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?

Names a specific verb ('listeler') and resource ('kaynak kataloğunu'), so the agent knows this returns a catalog of sources. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling list_sectors, but the resource is distinct enough to be separable.

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 description implies the filtering use case ('sector verilirse o sektörle ilgili kaynaklar') but never states when to call this versus list_sectors or discover_series, nor any prerequisites for obtaining a valid sector value.

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