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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=true and adds substantial context beyond annotations: stalled syncs auto-close and block new syncs, the four terminal statuses, where detailed provider errors live (progress.campaignDetails[].errorDetails, errors, totals.errors), and that PLATFORM_REVIEW_PENDING is a warning, not a failure, with an explicit do-not-edit instruction.

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 return payload, then status semantics, then error shapes, then Space scoping – a sensible order. It is dense and long, and the PLATFORM_REVIEW_PENDING guidance sits slightly outside the stated purpose, but nearly every sentence carries actionable 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?

For a read-only polling tool with a fully-described 2-param schema and no output schema, the description covers return shape, status lifecycle, error locations, and Space scoping. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 both sync_id (from trigger_sync) and space_id (one-call override that does not rebind the session) are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the space-override behavior but adds no new syntax or format semantics. 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 verb (return), resource (a sync's status) and enumerates exactly what comes back: status, per-campaign progress, totals, structured errors. This is clearly distinguishable from list_syncs (enumerating syncs) and cancel_sync (mutating one).

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?

Explicitly tells the agent which effectiveStatus values mean 'keep polling' vs which are terminal, and routes to set_active_space / space_id for cross-Space reads. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives like list_syncs or trigger_sync, so it's clear context but not a full when/when-not decision tree.

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