Get Database Status

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, so no safety concerns are hidden. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining what the status reveals and how it aids in interpreting empty lookup results.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core output, and the second sentence states practical usage, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 parameterless status tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool reports and when to use it, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 empty input schema fully documents the interface. The description does not need to clarify parameter meaning; the baseline of 4 applies due to the absence of parameters.

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 states what the tool provides: loaded rate data and the last-fetch time for each source. It is unambiguously a status/metadata tool, distinct from the sibling tools that return pay, housing, and compensation values.

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 gives two concrete situations to use it: checking data freshness before relying on figures, and diagnosing why a lookup returned empty. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the provided contexts are clear and actionable.

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