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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: a pending manual import may be coalesced and that existing import returned, and 'never moves money' reassures on blast radius despite destructiveHint=false.

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, front-loaded with the action, then behavior, then retry guidance, then safety. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be dropped without losing information.

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 tool is simple (one UUID param) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. What is present covers the mutation's side effects and retry semantics; only error/auth behavior for an invalid or inaccessible connection ID is left implicit.

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?

Only one parameter, connectionId, and the schema has 0% description coverage. The phrase 'one existing connection' mildly implies the UUID must reference a pre-existing connection (as opposed to creating one), but nothing is said about where to obtain it or what happens on an unknown ID.

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 pair and resource: 'request a provider refresh and queue an import for one existing connection.' Scope is narrowed to a single connection, which distinguishes it from the plural sync/read siblings such as mofi_sync_get and mofi_connections_get.

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?

'Check mofi_sync_get before repeating an ambiguous request' gives explicit retry guidance and names the alternative to consult. It does not cover when to prefer this over mofi_connections_get for inspection-only needs, but the primary when-to-use case is clear.

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