update_feeds

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: the tool always downloads from fixed sources, is a no-op within a one-hour window, and lists also auto-refresh every six hours. That explains side effects (network fetch) and idempotence rationale that readOnlyHint/openWorldHint only imply.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the trigger condition. The final auto-refresh sentence is slightly tangential but still earns its place by explaining why staleness may resolve on its own.

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-argument mutation tool with an output schema already present, the description covers trigger, side effects, cooldown, and background behavior—nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4; the description usefully confirms 'Takes no arguments' and clarifies that sources are fixed and non-configurable, preventing an agent from hunting for filter options.

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 and resource ('Refresh scamgate's phishing lists') plus timing ('now'), which is immediately distinguishable from siblings check_url and check_payment that query verdicts rather than update data.

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 a concrete trigger: 'Use it when a scamgate verdict or status says the lists are missing or stale.' Usage conditions are clear but there is no explicit statement of when not to call (e.g. that calling unprompted is wasteful), though the cooldown note implies it.

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