check_freshness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it lists the returned values (publish_date, days_old, timeliness_note), states that it measures days since publication, and explicitly disclaims official validity judgment. It does not mention error behavior or URL accessibility, but for a read-only freshness check this is reasonable.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states purpose and return fields, the second adds the necessary caveat about official validity. The most important limitation is positioned at the end without bloating the description.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key context: what it checks, what it returns, and what it does not decide. It could be more complete by describing the timeliness_note format and when to prefer an official validity tool, but it is sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the single url parameter is the policy page whose publication date and age will be checked, and connects it to the tool's return values. It doesn't spell out URL requirements, but the semantic is effectively clear.

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 names a specific verb ('检查') and resource ('政策页面的发布日期与时效性'), and states the concrete output fields. It also differentiates the tool's limited role from an official validity determination, which sets it apart from siblings like verify_law_article_tool.

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?

It clearly frames the tool as an auxiliary date reference for questions about whether a document is still current, and warns that official timeliness markings govern invalidity. It does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative for official validity determinations, so it stops short of full 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.