get_knowledge_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine interpretive context beyond that: the data is read from a live registry populated at import time, per-domain constants flow through automatically, and the project-wide constant only records the latest targeted update and must not be read as a shared review date. That last point is a real misuse warning.

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 purpose is correctly front-loaded in sentence one. However, the middle paragraph spends several clauses on developer mechanics (`register_domain_knowledge`, `KnowledgeMetadata` at import time) that do not help an agent decide or invoke, and the 'Returns:' block largely restates what the output schema already declares.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, yet it does so and still conveys the key caveat about interpreting the project-wide date. For a zero-parameter meta-tool, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though a sentence on when to reach for 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is a closed empty object, consistent with the description's picture of a no-argument registry read.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: return freshness status of every registered business knowledge domain. No sibling tool covers this registry/freshness surface, so the agent can place it unambiguously. The second paragraph drifts into implementation framing (import-time registration, constant bumping), which muddies rather than sharpens the stated purpose.

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 never says when an agent should call this tool, e.g. before answering a business-setup question to confirm the underlying domain data is current. There are no exclusions, no alternatives, and no prerequisites named. Usage is only inferable from the tool's name.

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