get_freshness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing what the tool returns (crawl summary fields, output/state dir presence, running job), which is useful behavioral detail beyond the structured annotations. It accurately describes a read-only inspection operation without contradicting any annotations.

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 dense sentences: the first lists the return content, the second gives the decision context. No filler and the key return information is front-loaded. The description achieves high information density in a compact format.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It states what is returned, how to decide to use the tool, and the annotations cover idempotence and safety. The provided information fully supports correct invocation.

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 input schema documents site_key at 100% coverage, including the hint to use list_sites to discover available keys. The description adds no parameter-level details, but with full schema coverage the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra semantics are needed beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Return the most recent crawl summary for a site') and enumerates the returned fields, making the operation unmistakable. It also injects a decision cue ('Use this to decide whether to query the existing crawl or run crawl_site first') that distinguishes it from the crawl_site sibling. This is a clear, specific purpose statement that differentiates it from other tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: before deciding between querying an existing crawl and running crawl_site. This names the alternative and the condition, satisfying the usage guidance dimension. The tool's role as a freshness check is directly tied to a decision, giving clear context.

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