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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description reveals key behaviors: events already present are skipped, the P&L is never double-counted, an overlap_warning is returned unless confirm_overlap is true, and a reconciliation sweep may drain Stripe payouts from clearing. This adds substantial operational context beyond the structured 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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, idempotency/safety, overlap behavior, side-effect sweep, and follow-up action. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, when it is safe to call, edge cases, side effects, and how to monitor progress. With an output schema present, the return-value discussion is not necessary, and no critical operational details are missing.

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 schema already covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining what happens on overlap, the purpose of confirm_overlap as a 'did you mean to re-scan?' prompt, and the data scope for providers. This exceeds minimal schema coverage.

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 the tool 'queues a historical import' over a chosen window and specifies the data sources (Stripe charges/refunds/payouts, Mercury transactions). It names the affected resource and distinguishes this as a re-import operation from the initial connect tools in the sibling list.

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 explicitly says 'safe to call any time', explains idempotency, and gives concrete guidance on overlap behavior with confirm_overlap. It also tells the agent to poll get_financial_summary for progress, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with an alternative for live or initial sync.

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