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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only adds a cost figure (0.002 USDC) but does not disclose the return value, how the evaluation works, what happens when the maximum age is exceeded, or any side effects.

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 very brief and front-loads the action and cost, but it is a fragment rather than a structured explanation. The brevity leaves out necessary details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is far from complete. An agent would not know what result to expect, how to handle stale sources, or what the 0.002 USDC signifies beyond a cost.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It implicitly maps 'explicit maximum age' to max_age_seconds but does not clarify source_urls beyond a vague 'live source observation', leaving the URL format and interpretation undocumented.

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 states a clear verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('live source observation against explicit maximum age'), indicating a freshness check. It is not a tautology and is distinct enough from related tools, though it doesn't explicitly compare to siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only includes the task statement and a cost, with no mention of context, exclusions, or sibling tools.

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