get_rate_freshness

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

The word 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but there are no annotations to confirm this and no description of behavioral traits such as filtering behavior, error cases, or what is meant by 'freshness'. The description provides only a high-level result, not enough behavioral context for an agent without annotations.

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 one concise sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is structurally clean, though the brevity sacrifices necessary detail.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what 'freshness status' looks like, what 'routes' are affected, or how the optional 'category' parameter influences the result.

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 defines a single 'category' property with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention 'category', its purpose, accepted values, or whether it filters by data source. The agent cannot determine what value, if any, to provide.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('public data source freshness status and affected routes'), which distinguishes it from the rate-oriented sibling tools. However, 'freshness status' and 'affected routes' are not elaborated, leaving some ambiguity about exactly what is returned.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_top_rates or get_reality_score. No exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual triggers are provided.

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