refresh_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that an identical re-pull is reported as 'no change' (Rule 13), not a fake update. This is a key behavioral trait beyond just extracting data. However, it does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits, which are minor for a read-only tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be improved by adding the missing parameter information without becoming verbose.

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 has 1 optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the 'as-of' date looks like or the format of the change indicator. The mention of 'Rule 13' is cryptic without context. The year parameter is ignored entirely, making the description insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without further inference.

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 one optional parameter (year) with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent guessing how year affects the output (e.g., filtering to a specific filing year). This is a severe omission.

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 that the tool extracts the as-of (max Filed/Receipt date) and whether it changed since the prior pull. This is a specific action (extract) on a specific resource (status change indicator), and the mention of Rule 13 helps distinguish it from sibling tools that retrieve raw data (e.g., get_report, get_summary).

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 implicitly defines when to use the tool: to check if a re-pull would result in a 'no change' or a real update. This is clear for an agent performing data synchronization. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the purpose is self-explanatory enough.

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