refresh_cached_data

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false and idempotent=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating but idempotent operation. The description adds the behavioral trait of 'queue or poll' and highlights the commercial restriction, which goes beyond what annotations convey. It does not detail side effects, but given the annotations, this is sufficient.

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 composed of two concise sentences, with the primary action stated first and the restriction/alternative immediately after. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has a single parameter fully described in the schema, no output schema, and annotations covering safety profile. The description provides the essential context: what it operates on, the quantity limit, and the exclusion for commercial users. This is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, and the schema fully documents the availabilityIds parameter with constraints (1-250 items, string format). The description does not add extra semantics beyond restating the count range, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: to queue or poll refreshes for 1-250 cached Availability objects. It uses a specific verb ('queue or poll') and resource ('cached Availability objects'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly comparing to live_search.

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 explicit usage guidance, stating that commercial users cannot use this endpoint and should use live_search instead. This clearly signals when to use this tool versus an alternative, fulfilling the dimension fully.

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