Summarize Catalogue Freshness

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

Annotations already disclose that the tool is readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add contextual scope. It usefully adds that the summary covers the 'published catalogue' and includes a health check timestamp, but it does not explain how freshness thresholds are defined or how current the counts are. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the resource and output type, then lists the exact components of the summary. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description gives the necessary scope and tells the caller what kind of information will come back. Minor gaps remain around staleness definitions and how to route to sibling tools for detailed results, but these are not blockers for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter meanings for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for a no-parameter tool, this is handled appropriately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('published catalogue') plus the exact output contents: fresh, aging, stale, and reference counts and the latest health check time. This makes it clearly a summary-level tool and distinct from the sibling find_* tools that surface individual records or anomalies.

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 phrase 'freshness-at-a-glance summary' implies this is the overview tool to use before drilling into more specific siblings like find_stale or find_anomalies, but the description never explicitly states when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage guidance is present only by implication.

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