harvest_status

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: if the last run status is not 'complete,' the source's index portion may be partial, which warns agents about interpreting the data.

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 with no filler: the first front-loads every reported dimension and the second adds the essential interpretation caveat. Every clause contributes meaning.

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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what information is available and warns about partial-index implications, leaving no obvious call-time decision unclear.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add; the 100% schema coverage is vacuously satisfied. The description's focus on returned content is appropriate and needs no parameter elaboration.

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 enumerates what the tool exposes (per-source record counts, last harvest time/status, notes, and yearly coverage) and adds a precise partial-index caveat, so the resource is clear. It lacks an explicit 'get/retrieve' verb and does not differentiate from siblings, but the listed fields are specific enough to identify the purpose.

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?

The content makes the intended context clear: any need to inspect harvest runs, per-source counts, status, or coverage by year. It does not name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the straightforward read-only status-report scope leaves little ambiguity.

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