refresh_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses a concrete failure mode: the previously-served snapshot keeps being used and the error surfaces via get_data_status.last_refresh_error. It also conveys that this is an active force operation rather than a passive read, though it does not describe the success return.

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 crisp sentences with no wasted words. The action and pipeline are front-loaded, and the failure-behavior sentence 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, no-annotation tool, the description covers the operation, the failure fallback, and where to observe errors. It omits the success return value, but the core invocation context is sufficiently complete.

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?

This is a zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters needing explanation, and the description does not add redundant or conflicting parameter information.

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 an explicit action ('Force') on a specific resource: a fetch/normalize/validate/promote cycle against the upstream provider. This clearly distinguishes refresh_data from the sibling query/calculation tools.

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?

Implies usage when an immediate refresh is desired, but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or when it should be avoided. The pointer to get_data_status for failure reporting provides some routing context, but there is no direct when/when-not guidance.

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