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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior; the description adds the critical async contract that the call returns immediately and work continues in the background. That is exactly the kind of fact annotations cannot express. It stops short of covering repeated-call behavior, concurrency, or any throttling.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the async behavior before the usage hint. No filler or restated title.

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?

For a single-parameter trigger tool with no output schema, the definition covers action, timing, and motivation. It could have said what the immediate response contains (e.g. confirmation or job handle), which is the one remaining gap given no output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 100% and the provider slug format, enum casing, and unknown-slug fallback are all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action and resource ("trigger an incremental sync for a connected provider") and makes the scope explicit as incremental rather than full. An agent can distinguish it from connect_source, connection_status, and the read-oriented query tools without opening the 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 a concrete when-to-use condition: the user wants fresh data now, e.g. after a workout, rather than waiting for the daily sync. It implicitly contrasts with the scheduled sync but does not name any sibling tool or state when not to call it (e.g. already-syncing state).

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