fi_energy_check_data_freshness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose output behavior ('reports staleness and provides update instructions'), which is useful for a diagnostic tool, but says nothing about whether it is a read-only operation, whether it hits the network, or how costly/slow it is.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence adds genuine value about behavior rather than restating the name, though it could be folded into one tighter statement.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the nature of the result ('staleness' plus 'update instructions'). What an agent needs in order to call it is present, though permission/auth expectations are not mentioned.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a global, no-argument check across all sources.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Check data freshness for each source'), making its role distinct from siblings like fi_energy_list_sources and the various search/get tools. It is clear about scope ('for each source') but does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs to know whether source data is stale before relying on it. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as fi_energy_list_sources for enumerating sources.

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