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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered. Description adds the four-band taxonomy (live/recent/aging/stale) and the map/list shape, which is useful context beyond annotations. Does not enumerate what other stale-related tools return or rate limits, but the band semantics are the key behavioral detail.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core output spec ('last-measurement timestamp + band') then the use-case. Every clause earns its place; no repetition of the title.

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?

Zero-param, read-only, no-output-schema tool; description covers output content and purpose adequately. Slightly incomplete on the exact map key/value format and band thresholds, but the agent has enough to call and interpret it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. No parameter semantics to document, and the description correctly confines itself to describing output rather than fabricating inputs.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('get_measurement_freshness') and crisply defines the output: last-measurement timestamp plus a four-band freshness label across all monitored countries. Distinguishes itself from siblings like get_data_freshness and get_data_confidence by scoping to per-country measurement recency.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'to check whether a country's censorship data is current before relying on it.' Tells the agent how to act on the result (find the country in the returned map). No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the context is clear.

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