refresh_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the significant behavior that a cached copy exists and is normally refreshed on use after a week — telling the agent this call has a networked side effect that replaces the cache. It omits failure behavior, latency/volume expectations, and whether the cached data is destroyed or replaced atomically, and it never explains the default-true force flag.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the caching context an agent needs. The repeated emphasis in 'Re-download ... now' is mildly redundant, but nothing is padded.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the caching model but not the result: whether the call reports success, how many records were fetched, or how failure surfaces. Adequate to select the tool, thin on what to expect after calling.

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 0% and the single parameter 'force' (default true) is undocumented in both schema and description. The word 'now' loosely hints that a call triggers an immediate refresh, but nothing explains what force=false would do versus the default, leaving the parameter's semantics to guesswork.

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?

Names a specific verb (re-download) and a specific resource (the Ofcom Wireless Telegraphy Register), which is clearly distinct from the query-oriented siblings like search_licences or lookup_dmr_id. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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 clause about the cache being refreshed automatically when older than a week implies when a manual call is unnecessary, which is useful context. However, it never states the actual trigger condition ('use this when you need data fresher than the cache') or any exclusion, so the agent must infer the decision rule.

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