refresh_experience_sources

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, not destructive). The description adds a critical latency warning ('may take several minutes') and the constraint that sources must be 'allowlisted', which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects like data mutations or rate-limit behavior.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The latency note is essential and efficiently conveyed without any wasted words.

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 complex long-running crawler, the description gives the most critical operational fact (time duration) and the allowlist constraint. However, it omits any statement about what the crawl updates or how it relates to sibling tools, making the description feel incomplete for decision-making. The output schema covers return values, but the behavioral context is sparse.

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 description provides no parameter-level guidance whatsoever. Schema coverage is only 50%, with to_date and from_date described generically as calendar dates. Since the description does not compensate for this gap, parameter semantics are weak.

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 uses an explicit verb 'Run' with a specific resource ('allowlisted official-source crawlers') and notes the time duration. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, search, or render experiences rather than execute crawls.

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 implies usage for refreshing experience data from official sources and mentions the 'allowlisted' prerequisite, giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_experience or search_nearby_experiences, nor does it provide any exclusions.

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