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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the metrics returned but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, requires no permissions, or describe any rate limits. A status tool is implicitly safe, but the description could be more explicit.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The core content is front-loaded, and the usage trigger follows immediately. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values. It lists the key metrics (rebuild time, sync time, counts), which is sufficient for an agent to understand what will be returned. However, it omits explicit read-only assurance and any output format details.

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 parameter semantics baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any inputs and correctly focuses on outputs.

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 clearly states what the tool provides: freshness and volume metrics (last rebuild, last sync, product/page/article/PDF counts). It is specific about the content, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like usilitel_catalog_changes or usilitel_refresh.

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 gives a clear trigger: 'Вызывайте, если спрашивают, насколько актуальны данные' (call if asked how current the data is). There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, but the context for use is unambiguous.

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