get_data_freshness

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

No annotations exist, but the description fully discloses the output fields (server_version, server_name, transport, etc.) and the meaning of the 'sources' list. It implies no side effects, which is appropriate for a read-only 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?

Two well-structured sentences per paragraph. Front-loaded with purpose, then lists returns. 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 no parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and outputs. It also provides usage context (cache decisions) that adds value beyond the schema.

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, so the description cannot add parameter semantics beyond the schema. The guideline suggests a baseline of 4 for 0 parameters, which is appropriate as the description does not mislead.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a 'Server health + data-source catalog probe' and distinguishes it from sibling data retrieval tools by stating it returns server version and source catalog. The verb 'probe' and the listed outputs make the purpose unmistakable.

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 description explains it is the 'canonical version/health endpoint' and helps decide about stale cache, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with siblings. Still, the context is clear for a health/metadata tool.

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