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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: failure reasons never quote record contents, conflict names are only visible to a user permitted to manage integrations, and 'include' only applies with an integration_id. It stops short of noting rate limits or pagination across the 30-day window.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger scenario and tightly packed, but several sentences are long nested clauses with heavy colon/semicolon chaining, which slows scanning. Every sentence does carry information, so the length is earned, just not optimally structured.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still characterizes the payload (failures grouped by reason with counts per integration and record type, waiting records, totals, conflicts). With four optional params, permission caveats and explicit exclusions covered, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what each optional parameter unlocks (recent_syncs adds moment/outcome plus per-record-type read/written/skipped/failed counts; conflicts adds waiting conflicts) and by stating that integration_id is required for include to have effect.

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 ('get_sync_health' / integrations sync status) and immediately frames the caller scenario ('a signed in CRM Connector customer asks how their syncs are doing'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming list_integrations, resolve_conflict and run_sync as the wrong tools for adjacent jobs.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (questions about failures, missing records, waiting items, last run, pending conflicts), explicit when-not ('Not for listing integrations', 'not for fixing anything'), and explicit routing to the alternatives with the condition that selects each. Nothing 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.