get_source_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context beyond those: it only reads saved data, does not refresh the source or run a simulation, and requires an already-imported snapshot or demo. This is a meaningful addition that helps the agent reason about side effects and prerequisites.

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 made up of six short sentences that each carry distinct value: purpose, prerequisite, return fields, non-behavior (no refresh/simulation), and explicit alternative tools. It's well-structured and front-loaded, with no filler or repetition.

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 the tool has zero parameters, an output schema, and detailed annotations, the description provides all remaining context needed for correct invocation: prerequisites, main behavior, and how to route alternatives. No required information about when or how to call it is missing.

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 schema covers all properties trivially (100% coverage). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps, and it correctly adds no parameter explanation beyond stating the tool requires a snapshot or demo. Baseline of 4 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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Check the freshness and completeness of the saved observation.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly noting it does not refresh the source or run a simulation, and by pointing to alternative tools for fresh data and caller-supplied replacements. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and what it doesn't.

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 a direct precondition: 'Requires an imported snapshot or loaded demo.' It also gives explicit alternative routing: 'Use the ESPN companion for fresh HTTP season observations or browser forecast observations' and 'Use import_league_snapshot for replacement data supplied by the caller.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus when to select a different one.

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