cache_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the report is scoped to the current session, is grouped by service, and includes budget and cache-consumption information. It stops short of explaining what the budget represents or whether the numbers are cumulative or point-in-time.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, leading directly with the verb and the reported content. The parallel list of three subjects is efficient. The only cost is that compressing 'Digitalarkivet budget' into a noun phrase leaves it under-explained rather than the sentence being too long.

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?

For a zero-parameter, annotation-covered read tool this is largely sufficient, but with no output schema the description is the only source for return content, and it lists three report sections without saying what each contains, in what units, or in what form. An agent knows broadly what it will get but not how to interpret the budget or cache figures.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 states a specific verb (Report) and enumerates the three things reported: this session's requests broken down by service, the Digitalarkivet budget, and cache use. This clearly marks it as a session-level diagnostics tool, distinct from the search/download siblings. It loses a point because 'the Digitalarkivet budget' is domain jargon whose meaning is not defined.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. The only cue is the phrase 'this session's requests,' which merely implies it is for introspecting current-session state after other calls. An agent must infer that this is a diagnostic/monitoring call rather than a data-retrieval call.

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