Get data freshness

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the exact return structure (per-domain timestamps), clarifying a zero-argument call, and stating 'Works on any plan.' No contradictions exist, and the added context is useful beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: one clear summary sentence, one usage instruction, and a structured 'Args/Returns' section. Every sentence earns its place. The return JSON block is detailed but organized, providing necessary transparency without unnecessary verbosity.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the exact JSON shape returned, including nested fields and the meta.as_of timestamp. It covers purpose, usage, scope ('Works on any plan'), and output. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 has zero parameters, and the description explicitly confirms 'Args: none.' Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description provides full clarity by stating there are no arguments.

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 provides a per-domain data-age signal, listing exactly which domains are covered (projection pipeline, lineups, lines). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that return actual data, not freshness metadata. The noun-phrase style is immediately understandable in context.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'Check this to decide whether the data is fresh enough before acting on it.' It also says 'Works on any plan,' adding context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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