check_data_freshness

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It implies read-only operation by listing rules and explains the purpose of staleness, but it does not describe the return format or whether any side effects exist. This is adequate but not fully 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a structured Args section. The additional planning law context is useful but slightly verbose; it earns its place by explaining why freshness matters.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. It does not describe the return format, but the tool's behavior is straightforward enough that this is not a critical gap.

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?

Despite the context signal indicating 0% schema coverage, the description's Args section explicitly defines max_age_months and its meaning ('Rules older than this many months are reported as stale'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific action ('List rules that have not been re-verified recently') with a clear resource (rules) and condition (staleness). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_granny_flat_rules and compare_states.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to call it ('Call this before relying on a rule for a decision') and what to do with results ('warn the user'). It does not name alternatives but clearly indicates the appropriate context.

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