get_docs_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that the data is a local copy with a measurable age, which tells the agent results elsewhere may be stale and that this call is a cheap status probe.

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 verb and resource, then the returned fields in a compact list. No filler and nothing that could be cut.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to decide to call it. It stops short of explaining how the staleness figure should influence other operations, which would be the last useful detail for a corpus-status tool.

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, so the baseline applies and there is nothing for the schema to under-document. The description correctly implies a single global, unfiltered query over the whole corpus.

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 gives a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('corpus metadata') and enumerates exactly what is returned: article count, categories, last sync, and local-copy age. That clearly separates it from the read/search siblings, though the mention of 'categories' creates mild overlap with list_categories that is not explicitly disambiguated.

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?

Usage is only implied: reporting local-copy age hints at a staleness check before or after searching, but the description never states when to call this versus list_categories or list_docs, nor any exclusions. An agent can infer the intent but is given no routing guidance.

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