data_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of what comes back (counts per source, last update/crawl timestamps, currency stamp), which implies a read-only operation, but it never explicitly states read-only behavior, permission requirements, or whether the numbers can be stale/incomplete. Adequate but leaves behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, with the reporting content front-loaded and the usage trigger in the second. Every clause carries information; it is slightly dense but not padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes them at a useful level. Combined with the explicit usage trigger, an agent has enough to decide and invoke correctly; only explicit read-only/auth framing 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 description correctly adds no spurious parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report, per source') and enumerates exactly what is reported: provision counts, last successful update, last full crawl, and the source's currency stamp. It is clearly distinguishable from lookup/search/get_document siblings by being a status/metrics read rather than content retrieval, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this when the user asks whether the data is current.' That routes the agent well. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming a concrete alternative among siblings, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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