Fiscal Status

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: 'Never returns empty silently; used for graceful degradation,' which is a behavioral guarantee not present in the annotations. This goes beyond the baseline.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first line and the use case and behavior in the second. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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 health endpoint with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral nuance. There are no missing pieces an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 the description is not required to explain parameter behavior. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no parameter-related information but also does not need to.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Report cache freshness and upstream health per dataset.' It also explicitly labels itself as 'the health endpoint of this server,' distinguishing it from the sibling data-querying tools like fiscal_headline and fiscal_budget_breakdown.

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 gives a clear use case: 'check whether the data is fresh, cached or degraded before trusting a figure.' This tells the agent when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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