about

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns metadata, statistics, freshness, and provenance, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not describe the response format, potential performance characteristics, or any side effects, which would improve transparency.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence lists outputs, the second advises when to call. Front-loaded with key information.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It covers what the tool does but lacks details on the structure of the returned data or any guarantees. For a simple informational tool, it is adequate but not thorough.

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, and the input schema is already fully covered. The description adds context by listing the types of information returned. According to the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it returns server metadata, dataset statistics, freshness, and provenance, serving as an overview tool to verify data coverage and currency before using results. It distinguishes from siblings like check_currency and check_data_freshness by its broader scope, but could explicitly mention that it is the go-to for an overall status 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 advises calling this tool to verify data coverage, currency, and content basis before relying on results, providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, leaving the agent to infer from the broader purpose.

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