assets_get_external_websites_last_external_assessment

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 output semantics ('A status of "true" indicates the websites data update was successful') and identifies the HTTP method and endpoint. It doesn't cover edge cases or authorization, but for a read-only query tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with a title-like phrase, followed by a concise explanation and endpoint. No redundant information or fluff; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it states the returned information (time and status) and the meaning of status. It lacks a detailed return format, but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap. The endpoint and domain ('Asset management') add useful context.

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 100%; the schema's description for 'request_data' already states it takes an empty dictionary to return the assessment. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's function: 'Gets the time and status of the last update of websites data in Cortex.' It uses a specific verb ('gets') and resource ('last assessment of websites'), and the endpoint reference further distinguishes it from siblings like 'assets_get_external_websites' which likely retrieve the full list of websites.

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 provides clear context on what the tool does (checking the last assessment status), which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5. The context is sufficient for an agent to infer its purpose relative to sibling tools.

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