check_database_freshness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: it warns on staleness and is limited to Arch Linux. No contradictions, and it provides context beyond annotations, though the staleness threshold inconsistency (24 hours vs 7 days) slightly reduces clarity.

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 two sentences and a usage note. However, there is an internal inconsistency in staleness thresholds (24 hours vs 7 days) that slightly harms clarity. Otherwise, it is well-structured and front-loaded with key 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, condition (staleness warning), OS requirement, and usage scenario. It is complete for a simple check tool without needing additional structure.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter info, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. It modestly adds value by explaining the outcome (warning) but parameter semantics are not relevant.

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 checks when package databases were last synchronized, warns if stale (>24 hours), and only works on Arch Linux. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on database freshness, with a specific maintenance tag.

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 explicitly states when to use: to check if pacman database is stale (>7 days old) and needs 'pacman -Sy'. It also notes the tool only works on Arch Linux, guiding when not to use it.

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