ofw_check_freshness

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description discloses costs (one request per folder plus per messageId), side effects (probing non-cached draft marks as read if allowMarkRead true), and what it does/doesn't do (no bodies, no attachments, no sync dependency). No contradiction with annotations.

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 with the core purpose. It is fairly long but all sentences are informative and no redundancy. Could be slightly more compact, but effective.

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 moderate complexity, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description covers use case, behavior, parameter details, and even explains return information (counts and existence/content checks). It is complete for an AI agent to decide correct invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning: defaults for folders (all three when messageIds not given), max 25 for messageIds, and explains the side effect of allowMarkRead (marks read). This enriches understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'check freshness' and explains it cheaply confirms local cache matches OFW without a full sync. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ofw_sync_messages.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: before asserting current state when serverConfirmed or staleness indicates staleness. Also says it does not depend on sync state, providing clear context.

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