Platform Health

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral nuance: that a feed reporting 'unknown' has NOT been measured and is not equivalent to healthy, and to read health before trusting figures. It also discloses that the scope is exactly what /api/health/data-freshness serves, with nothing wider. This exceeds what annotations convey.

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?

The description is somewhat long but well organized: output structure, semantic caveat, the question it answers, and scope/exclusion. Each sentence earns its place; the 'Try: get_backup_status' is slightly redundant but harmless. A small deduction for verbosity, but still tightly written.

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 tool with zero parameters and a read-only verdict, the description fully specifies the return shape (per-feed rows with health, record_count, refresh_interval, scheduler, and a summary rollup), the important interpretation of 'unknown', and the boundary against get_changes. There is no practical information an agent needs to call it correctly that is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to clarify parameter syntax; it focuses on output and usage, which is appropriate for a parameterless read-only endpoint.

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 names a specific resource and verb: 'Per-feed freshness for the DC Hub ingest layer' with one row per feed, and answers a concrete question ('are any of your sources stale right now'). It also explicitly differentiates from siblings by saying 'Do NOT use for the freshness of one dataset (use get_changes)', so an agent can tell it apart from get_changes and similar 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use ('Answers "are any of your sources stale right now"') and when-not-to-use with a named alternative ('Do NOT use for the freshness of one dataset (use get_changes); this is ingest health, not content'). This leaves no ambiguity about when the tool is appropriate.

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