get_latest_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious traits: 'latest retained' implies data may be stale, the source_collection_status precondition warns the value may not be current, and the NZ note pre-empts a surprising dual-record return. It omits auth/permission needs and error or empty-result behavior, so not 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?

Three tight sentences with zero padding: the core purpose first, then the freshness caveat, then the NZ return-shape exception. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information.

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 2-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the freshness caveat and a return-shape quirk, which are the two things an agent most needs. It does not describe the general shape of the returned record or what happens when no record exists, leaving a small gap.

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 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions (including examples for service_key and ISO format for applicant_country), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that applicant_country is optional; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Get the latest retained official processing-time record for a service', with scope narrowed by the optional applicant country. It is clearly a single-record getter, which implicitly separates it from compare_values, but it never names or contrasts a sibling tool.

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?

Provides a concrete precondition ('Check source_collection_status before treating it as current') and explains that applicant_country is optional and what omitting it means (global metrics). It stops short of explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative routing against compare_values or search_entities.

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