check_document_freshness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function and output but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only or mutative. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 front-loaded and efficient, consisting of two sentences that directly convey purpose, output, and usage without any wasted words. Every sentence adds value, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, output format, and usage context. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values, but it could benefit from more behavioral details given the lack of annotations.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter's role by mentioning 'days since last update' and 'stale/outdated documents that haven't been modified recently', which adds semantic meaning to the 'days_threshold' parameter beyond the schema's basic type and default value.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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('check for stale/outdated documents') and resources ('documents'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_documents' or 'list_sources' by focusing on freshness rather than content or listing. It explicitly mentions the output format ('list grouped by project showing file names and days since last update'), which adds clarity.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('proactively to suggest document reviews'), indicating its role in maintenance or review workflows. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'search_documents' for content-based queries, leaving some ambiguity.

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