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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true and idempotent=false, and the description adds material context beyond them: unsupported platforms return an error, a commerce-configure-scoped credential is required, and an unclaimed sandbox workspace gets a 403. What it does not disclose is the local write/ingest side effect implied by readOnlyHint=false or whether repeated runs can duplicate orders.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact, with the core action and scope front-loaded before the since-defaults and prerequisites. Density is high with essentially no filler, though the prerequisite sentences are somewhat staccato.

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?

With no output schema and no annotation detail on effects, the description still covers the operation's scope, the default time window, the unsupported-platform error path, and both credential and workspace prerequisites. The remaining gap is what a sync actually writes locally and how volume/pagination behaves.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema lacks: the default for 'since' is last sync, or 60 days on the first run, and it clarifies that the bound is exclusive ("orders after that time"). connector_id adds nothing beyond the schema, keeping it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Pull recent orders from one linked store") plus the consumer of those orders (the store sales view), which makes the intent clear. It does not name a sibling such as list_orders or sync_commerce_connector to draw an explicit boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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 supplies real selection context: this is the store-sales-view ingestion path, one connector at a time, and the default window is since the last sync (60 days on first run). It never states when to prefer list_orders or sync_commerce_connector instead, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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