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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does communicate the informational scope: source run time, live/expired counts, and known gaps. It does not explicitly say whether the operation is read-only, cached, or triggers any computation, but the phrasing strongly implies a non-mutating status report.

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 tight, front-loaded sentence conveys the main idea and the key contents in a colon-delimited list. There is no filler text, though an explicit verb and parameter mention would strengthen it.

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?

The description gives a helpful high-level summary of the return contents, but with no output schema and no mention of the query parameter, an agent lacks enough detail to construct a fully informed call. It also provides no guidance on how this tool compares with the many siblings.

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 only parameter, query, is a bare string with zero schema description, and the tool description never mentions it. At 0% schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but offers no detail on expected values or whether the parameter filters or selects.

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 'How current this dataset is,' which clearly frames a freshness/status reportaine, and then lists concrete contents: when each source last ran, live vs expired assertions, and known gaps. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by topic even though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'show' or 'get'.

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 sentence explains when to prefer this tool over siblings like media_still_true or media_verify, and no conditions or exclusions are provided. The description only implies that it should be used for dataset-currentness questions.

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