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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing a daily quota ('10 account syncs a day'), a deduplication window ('an account synced in the last 10 minutes is handed back without using one'), a latency boundary ('about 40 seconds'), and the async fallback contract ('otherwise a job_id: call again with job_id to check'). It also states the cost model ('Uses no credits'), which is behavior no structured field conveys.

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 paragraph is ordered deliberately: what it does, when to use it, when not to, scope, quota, return behavior, cost. Every sentence carries distinct operational information — nothing restates the title or the schema, and the two most decision-critical facts (the alternative tool and the quota) are placed early.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing both return modes — per-account results on completion and a job_id for the async path — plus the cost and quota implications of calling it. Combined with three fully documented, all-optional parameters, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly on the first try.

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 real meaning on top: it explains the scope default ('Syncs every connected account, or one by account_id or platform') and frames job_id as a re-entry mode rather than a new sync. The only thing left implicit is how platform and account_id interact if both are supplied.

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 — 'Refreshes the creator's own connected accounts (followers, views and recent posts)' — and immediately anchors it to a known analog ('the same sync as Refresh on the website's Analytics page'). It explicitly separates itself from get_analytics, so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling without opening any schema.

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?

Gives both the trigger ('when the creator asks to update their numbers or get_analytics shows an old last_synced day') and the exclusion ('to read the numbers use get_analytics'). It also routes the out-of-scope case away from the tool entirely: 'Connecting a new account happens on the website.' Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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