get_data_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for disclosing behavior. The verb 'Report' signals a read-only observation, and the description explicitly discloses the fallback-to-cache behavior, which is a non-obvious behavioral trait. It could additionally state that no data is mutated or refreshed, but the description is reasonably transparent.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, listing all status dimensions without redundancy. Every clause 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-argument status tool with no output schema, the description conveys the full conceptual payload: freshness, validation, size, and fallback state. It doesn't define the units or exact format of size/freshness, but those are return-format details the agent can discover from the actual response.

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 and the schema coverage is trivially complete, so there are no parameter semantics the description must clarify. Per the rubric baseline, 4 is appropriate because there is nothing missing.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Report') and names the resource ('currently served data snapshot') plus the specific status dimensions reported: freshness, validation status, size, and cache fallback. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling data-query tools like get_pokemon and from refresh_data, which performs an update rather than reporting status.

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 makes the intended use clear by framing the tool as a status reporter for the served snapshot, and the phrase 'after a failed refresh' implies a useful condition for checking it. It does not name sibling alternatives such as refresh_data or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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