gb_cyber_check_data_freshness

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses it checks database state and document counts, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple status check, the disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and what it checks, the second explains when to use it. No unnecessary words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies what is counted (guidance, advisories, frameworks) and the usage scenario. It could mention that the output is likely counts, but for a simple check tool, it suffices.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no params to cover). Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for zero parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist.

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 the tool checks the database state (document counts for guidance, advisories, and frameworks). It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('database state'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that search, get, list, or provide context.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to verify data is loaded and assess coverage before making compliance decisions,' providing clear context and timing. It does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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