get_data_freshness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a live AMFI ping (a network operation) and clarifies the data is not hardcoded, which is valuable behavior context. It does not mention potential latency or failure modes, but for a simple read-only freshness check this is reasonably complete.

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 only two sentences and gets to the point, but the opening 'Data Freshness Indicator —' is redundant with the tool name, and the phrase 'making it visibly clear...' is somewhat promotional. Still, it remains concise and front-loaded with the core function.

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 provides the key reported fields (last fetch date, latest data date) and the mechanism (live AMFI ping). There is slight ambiguity about which data sources are covered ('each live data source' vs. only AMFI), but overall it gives sufficient context for an agent to invoke it.

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, so the empty schema is complete. No parameter explanation is needed, and the description does not attempt to describe nonexistent parameters. This matches the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 reports freshness metadata (last fetch time and latest data date) for each live data source, using a specific verb ('reports') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_fund_nav or get_market_news by focusing on data recency rather than the data itself.

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 context is implied through phrases like 'making it visibly clear the numbers are current and real,' suggesting it is for verifying data recency. However, there is no explicit when-to-use instruction, no mention of when not to use it, and no alternatives named.

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