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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: exactly what gets overwritten (names, prices, details), that items deleted in Jobber get deactivated, that nothing changes on the Jobber side, and the failure condition when Jobber isn't connected. This is precisely the destructive-behavior detail an agent needs.

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 tight sentences: purpose, trigger, side effects, failure mode. Each sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information with no repetition.

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 parameterless, destructive, open-world sync with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, mutation scope, and failure mode. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to add, and the description correctly focuses on effects instead.

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 ('Re-import the contractor's products & services from their connected Jobber account') and the downstream purpose ('so drafts use current prices'). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_price_book, which only reads.

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 concrete triggers: the contractor says prices changed in Jobber, or the price book looks stale. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (e.g., search_price_book for inspection only) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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