check_staleness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('check') but does not mention whether it requires network access, what conditions cause errors, or the structure of the result. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves significant behavioral characteristics undocumented.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and key input, adhering to the principle of every word earning its place. There is no unnecessary fluff or repetition.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, expected behavior, or how parameters interact. While it provides a basic purpose, it falls short of being a complete guide for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter roles. It only mentions 'maxAgeSeconds', providing its meaning as the age threshold. Other parameters like 'names', 'chain', 'rpcUrl', and 'contractAddress' are not explained, leaving the user uncertain about their purpose and relationships.

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 function: checking if metrics are stale given maxAgeSeconds. It uses the specific verb 'check' with the resource 'metrics' and the key parameter 'maxAgeSeconds', distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_thresholds' which deals with thresholds. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'stale' means or what the output looks like, preventing a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or complementary tools such as 'check_thresholds' or 'get_health'. It simply states the action without contextualizing its appropriate use cases.

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