check_source_freshness

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the RPC-backed transport (no browser needed) and, crucially, that `stale: null` means 'server did not say' rather than 'current' — a behavior an agent would otherwise misread. It omits read-only confirmation, auth requirements, and rate limits.

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 tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, default scope, transport, and the null-semantics caveat. Front-loaded with the core behavior and no redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shape, and the null caveat covers the main interpretive risk. It is slightly thin on what counts as 'drift' and on auth/precondition requirements for a 4-parameter 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the omitted-parameter behavior (no source = whole notebook check), which the schema's per-field descriptions do not convey. It does not explain notebook_id vs notebook_url precedence or source_id vs source_name resolution order.

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?

Specific verb+resource: states it reports whether URL/Drive sources have drifted from their targets, scoping the resource to notebook sources. No sibling tool does freshness checking, and the phrase 'drifted from what they point at' removes ambiguity about what 'freshness' means.

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?

Explicitly states the default invocation mode: 'Name no source to check the whole notebook,' which tells the agent how to broaden scope. It does not name when to prefer this over e.g. source_read or source_list, but no sibling overlaps this function, so the guidance is adequate.

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