dump_status

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

Annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the deprecation timeline and the SEC-022 namespace rationale. It does not contradict annotations, and the extra context about the tool's future removal is valuable.

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 remarkably concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the deprecation warning, and every clause adds value. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter alias tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description fully covers the essential context: what it does, why it exists, how it relates to the sibling, and what will happen to it. Nothing important 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, so the schema is trivially complete. The description needn't document parameters. It adds no param info, but none is needed; baseline for 0 params is 4.

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's function: 'Reports cache freshness and upstream health per dataset.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming the replacement (`fiscal_status`) and noting it is an alias, which removes any ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Explicitly tells users not to use this tool in new code ('DEPRECATED — use `fiscal_status`'), explains its status as a backward-compatibility alias, and warns it will be removed. This is exactly the kind of when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance expected.

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