proofpage_ensure_fresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior: cooldowns are shared and archived sources are never fetched fresh, which an agent could not infer from the schema. It omits what happens when the source is not stale (no-op? cached return?), any auth requirements, and rate-limit specifics.

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, front-loaded with the action and condition, with the cooldown caveat second. Efficient, though the terseness is partly what leaves the behavioral and parameter gaps unfilled.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage on both required parameters. For a conditional operation the agent still cannot tell what a successful call returns, what a cooldown rejection looks like, or what happens when the source is already fresh — the description does not close any of those gaps.

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 compensate and does not. "source_id" is never explained (configured via proofpage_add_source/schedule_source?), and "max_age_seconds" is only obliquely gestured at by "if stale" — no statement of what clock it measures from or whether exceeding it forces a fetch.

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?

"Recheck a configured public source if stale" gives a specific verb (recheck), a specific resource (configured public source), and a gating condition. It falls short of a 5 because the sibling set contains proofpage_recheck_source, and the description does nothing to distinguish this tool from that near-identically named one.

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?

"if stale" implies the condition under which to call it, and the cooldown note hints when not to call it. But no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to proofpage_recheck_source or proofpage_collect as alternatives, which matters given the overlapping siblings.

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