Data freshness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the values come from meta.json files, and it also reports what the server has cached. It does not mention cost, latency, or whether cached data can be stale relative to the files.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical '(their meta.json files)' is slightly awkward but it is the one piece of implementation detail that clarifies where the timestamps originate, so it earns its place.

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, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the three things returned: per-digest timestamps, dashboard timestamps, and cache state. Return formatting details are absent, but with no output schema and no parameters there is little else an agent needs to call it.

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 (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is no argument syntax to explain, and the description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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 names the concrete outputs (last-made/last-read timestamps for each digest and the dashboard) and the backing source (meta.json files), plus the server's cache state. That is specific enough to separate it from every sibling (find_packages, build_failures, overview, etc.), none of which are status/freshness tools. It lacks a crisp verb like 'report' or 'show', but the resource and scope are clear.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus siblings such as overview or needs_attention, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer from the description alone that this is a freshness/cache inspection call.

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