Sync Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is settled; the description adds what the report actually surfaces — freshness, coverage, unknown venues, unmatched blocks, last error — which is real diagnostic context an agent needs to interpret the call. It doesn't describe size/cost of the call, but for a zero-argument local read that is minor.

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, zero filler: the first front-loads what the payload contains, the second states the trigger. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With an output schema present, return structure need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only profile. For a zero-argument diagnostic tool, the description supplies everything needed to decide whether to call 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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The annotation-free empty schema is fully consistent with the description, which requires no inputs to invoke it.

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?

Names the specific resource (the local database) and enumerates exactly what aspect is reported: freshness, coverage, unknown venues, unmatched blocks, last error. That is clearly a diagnostic/sync-health tool, distinguishable in kind from the data-retrieval siblings (query_matches, market_stats, etc.), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions: 'when data freshness is in doubt or a response was marked stale,' which tells the agent when to reach for it. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming an alternative (e.g., data_notes) for adjacent questions, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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