freshness-status

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

No annotations exist; description should fully disclose behavior. It implies a boolean or aggregate answer but does not specify output format, return type, or any side effects. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not stated.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key action and purpose. It is efficient with no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the simplicity (one boolean parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but lacks specification of the output format. It mentions a 'single answer' but does not clarify if it's a boolean, a list, or something else.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter 'failingOnly', which is already well-documented. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool cross-references dbt source freshness criteria to answer 'is anything stale?'. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like dbt-list-sources.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dbt-list-sources or other dbt tools). The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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