ofw_check_freshness

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

The description discloses costs ('one OFW request per folder plus one per messageId'), explains return fields (live state, revision hash comparison), clarifies that drafts edited in web app don't change timestamps, and warns about allowMarkRead marking messages read irreversibly. Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, which is consistent with the potential write effect of allowMarkRead=true. No contradiction.

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 a single dense paragraph but efficiently front-loads purpose and cost. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It reads naturally while packing in behavioral details. Ideal length for this complexity.

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 no output schema and three parameters with edge cases, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, costs, side effects, output fields, and distinguishes from similar tools. Leaves no obvious gaps.

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%, but description adds significant meaning: for folders it explains default behavior when messageIds omitted; for messageIds it details which cached states can be probed without marking read; for allowMarkRead it explains the irreversible consequence and server ceiling. This goes well beyond the schema's enum 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Cheaply confirm whether the local cache still matches OurFamilyWizard, WITHOUT running a full sync.' It specifies a use case ('draft X is still sitting unsent') and distinguishes from siblings like ofw_status and full sync.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this before asserting anything about current state' and 'For draftKeys, or a full live draft inventory, use ofw_status.' Also explains when not to use (if mark read side effect is undesirable) and provides alternative sibling tool.

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