fiscal_status

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

While annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: 'Never returns empty silently.' This is useful context beyond the annotations, although it doesn't discuss other potential behaviors like latency or error semantics.

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 yet information-rich, with two focused paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose, the following sentences provide usage context and a key behavioral trait. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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 parameterless health-check tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, and one critical behavioral guarantee. The output schema presumably covers return values, so the description needn't repeat them.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inventing unnecessary parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('cache freshness and upstream health per dataset'), which precisely distinguishes it from data-query sibling tools like fiscal_headline or fiscal_budget_breakdown. It also labels itself as 'the health endpoint of this server,' reinforcing its distinct 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?

It states an explicit use case: 'check whether the data is fresh, cached or degraded before trusting a figure.' It also frames itself as the health endpoint, implying it should be used for status checks rather than data retrieval, and notes its role in graceful degradation.

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