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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavioral effect (expiring stale evidence and downgrading colors) and the condition (evidence too old), but it does not clarify whether changes are permanent, reversible, or what 'too old' means. The mutation effect is clear but lacks additional safety or side-effect context.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences—and immediately states the core purpose. No filler or redundant information; it earns every word.

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 tool is simple (one optional param), and the schema covers the parameter. However, there is no output schema and no annotation, so the description should at least convey what the tool returns (e.g., a list of affected IDs or new statuses). It also doesn't mention the overall scope when entity_id is omitted, though the schema hints at 'checks all'. Overall it's adequate for a simple watchdog but leaves some ambiguity about the result.

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 schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for entity_id ('optional, checks all'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond this, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('freshness watchdog'), and details the exact action: expires stale evidence and downgrades statuses GREEN->YELLOW->GREY. This is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools like 'whatif_stale' or 'health_check'.

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 implies usage (run the watchdog to enforce freshness and downgrade old evidence) but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative tool guidance. It doesn't mention prerequisites, frequency, or when not to use it.

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