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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context about what the returned detail contains, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention error behavior or auth, but for a read-only detail fetcher this is a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action and result content are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is placed as a natural second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple, read-only, two-parameter lookup tool. The description covers what it returns, when to use it, and why it matters. With no output schema present, the description still gives enough return-value context to guide an agent effectively.

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 0% and the description does not explain projectId or runId beyond implying 'one sync run'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Load') and resource ('one sync run's full detail'), and enumerates what that detail contains: per-stage results, progress, lookback window, and pending batch count. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list tool sm_list_sync_runs and other get tools.

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 explicitly names the prerequisite sibling tool (sm_list_sync_runs) and the exact scenario: use this tool afterwards to explain why data is stale or a run failed. This gives an agent concrete routing guidance with no inference required.

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