cache_status

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

No annotations are supplied, but 'Report' strongly implies a read-only, side-effect-free inspection, which is the main behavioral fact an agent needs. It does not say what 'freshness' is measured against (TTL, last sync timestamp), whether the call hits upstream services, or what cost/latency to expect.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope distinction is packed into the same clause. It is arguably too terse for the only documentation of the tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with an output schema, this covers the essentials: what is reported and the two invocation modes. The remaining gap is the definition of 'freshness', which the output schema may itself disambiguate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of the single `org` parameter. It does explain the key distinction — supply an org for one scope, omit it for all configured orgs — which the schema alone (nullable string, default null) does not convey. It adds no format examples or matching semantics for the org value.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('cache freshness') along with its scope ('one org, or every configured org'). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like refresh_accounts or org_status, though the description never explicitly names those alternatives.

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: the reader infers this is for checking data staleness before relying on cached results. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling tool for refreshing versus inspecting.

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