Feed Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it explains the tool reads process-cached state and, critically, discloses that probe=true triggers one live request per source (a network side effect with likely latency). It does not mention any cost/timeout of probing, and read-only nature is only implied, keeping it below a 5.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the freshness scope is front-loaded and the probe rule is placed last as an actionable modifier. The dense parenthetical of internal fields is slightly hard to parse but every element is substantive, so no waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description appropriately focuses on scope and the probe side effect. For a simple 1-parameter diagnostic tool this is nearly complete; the only missing piece is usage context, which is scored separately under guidelines.

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 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter, and it does: 'probe=true makes one live request per source,' which conveys the difference between cached (default) and live behavior. It does not explicitly restate the false/default path, but the cached framing implies it, landing just short of full coverage.

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 specifies the resource precisely: freshness/health of the static feed plus every real-time source, with concrete reported fields (TTL state, age, feed timestamp, last error, NTAS coverage). It is clearly distinguishable from all transit-data siblings (stops, routes, arrivals, etc.). It loses a point only because it leads with a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, and 'NTAS' is unexplained jargon.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like service_status or service_changes, nor any condition such as 'call when data appears stale/before trusting cached results.' The probe=true note is invocation detail, not usage guidance. An agent must infer the when-to-use context.

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