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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it explains the possible travel modes ('always', 'needed', 'switchable'), notes such as fields that only travel on record creation, the fields that do not travel, a setup link, and that no sign-in is needed. This is rich behavioral disclosure that helps an agent interpret results correctly.

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 front-loaded with the core use case and a clear exclusion at the end, which is effective structure. It is somewhat long because of the explanatory examples and travel-mode definitions, but those details are useful rather than wasted, so it remains appropriately sized for the domain.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is complete: it covers the purpose, key use case, return content, travel-mode meanings, exclusions, and authentication context. An agent would have enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the enum parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds only that record type keys come from find_sync_options, which the schema also states, and does not contribute additional parameter-specific meaning such as how source and target directionality affects the result beyond the schema definitions.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it returns field-detail information for integrations between two systems for a given record type. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming find_sync_options for record-type discovery and excluding personal field mapping, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does 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?

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'Use when someone asks whether a particular field travels between two systems for one record type,' with examples such as phone number, address, due date, line items, and tax. It also states when not to use it: not for which record types a pair offers (use find_sync_options) and not for a person's own field mapping.

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