lobbywatch_refresh_dump

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it reports progress via MCP Context (audit SDK-003) during long-running downloads (~17 MB compressed). This provides valuable information about execution time and user feedback. Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hint, and the description complements these without contradiction.

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 concise, with the first sentence stating the primary action and return value. The following sentences add important context about progress reporting and use cases. Every sentence is meaningful, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description covers the purpose, behavior, and usage context adequately. It mentions the return value ('new cache status') and progress reporting. Given that no parameters are needed and an output schema exists, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result. Minor improvement could be a brief note on what 'cache status' entails, but the output schema likely handles that.

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 input schema is empty with 100% coverage. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, so this score is appropriate.

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 forces a re-download of the weekly Lobbywatch dump and returns the new cache status. It uses specific verbs (force re-download, returns) and resource (Lobbywatch dump). It distinguishes from siblings by implying this is for forcing a refresh, while siblings like lobbywatch_dump_status are likely for status checks without triggering a download.

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 explicit use cases ('Force a fresh download — the data looks stale' and 'I just heard about a new declaration — refresh and re-check'), which guide the agent on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the presence of sibling tools and the context of 'force re-download' vs. status check is implied. Slightly lacking in explicit exclusion guidance.

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