get_data_status

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. Beyond that, the sentence 'No refresh is implied' adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact absent from structured fields: calling this does not fetch or update data, so results may be stale. It stops short of describing what 'data age' looks like or failure modes when no source is connected.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about refresh is placed as a single clarifying clause at the end.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the five reported dimensions. It's nearly complete; it could note shape or behavior when no sources are connected, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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, and the schema is fully described, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline for a no-parameter tool 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 gives a specific verb ('Check') plus an enumerated set of resources it reports on: sources, connection state, observed periods, coverage, and data age. It's clearly a diagnostics/status tool, distinct from the course/grades siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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 by the enumeration of returned facts; there is no explicit 'use this when you need to know X before calling Y' or when-not guidance. The one real constraint, 'No refresh is implied,' hints at a usage boundary (this is a passive read, not a sync trigger) but doesn't tell the agent when to prefer it over a refresh or query tool.

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