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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already covered. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance by clarifying that generated_at is response time rather than the source odds tick, and that last_odds_update_seconds_ago represents feed-update age. This helps avoid misinterpretation of the returned timestamps.

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?

The description is a single focused statement followed by a brief, important clarification. It wastes no words and front-loads the core purpose ('Current feed status') before giving field-level detail.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It covers the main fields and the timestamp semantics, which is sufficient for a no-parameter health-check endpoint. It may not describe possible status values or formatting, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not conflict with or need to compensate for any parameter details.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: current feed status with events in store and feed-update age. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, all of which relate to odds, drops, events, or sports lists.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, and no mention of sibling tools. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the word 'status'.

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