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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses relevant behavior: it returns configured limits, shows max staleness, warn threshold, and tier-to-action mapping. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free/read-only, but 'Return' and 'Shows' strongly imply a query operation.

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?

Three short sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information: what the tool returns, what fields are included, and how to use the result.

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?

For a zero-parameter configuration query with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return contents and connects them to the check_freshness tool, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide when to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying that the scope is 'all action tiers' and that the result is about the full configuration rather than a filtered subset.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return the configured IOC freshness limits for all action tiers.' It clearly states the output scope and differentiates this from runtime check tools like check_freshness by focusing on configuration values.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to understand when check_freshness() will warn or block,' giving a clear use case. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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