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

The description discloses that it launches one background process, returns a specific shape, and continues an already-running sync without changing status. It also notes overlap with marketplace order sync and warns that the operation is heavy, all beyond what the annotations provide.

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 information-dense but every clause earns its place: scope, background execution, return value, concurrency behavior, alternative tool, and conditional parameter guidance are all covered without fluff. Key operational details are front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the exact return shape and status behavior when a sync is already running. It also connects to related follow-up surfaces like get_order_overview and gives enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly in the project-wide vs single-connection decision.

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 schema has one optional project_id with no description, so the description must compensate. It adds that project_id is OPTIONAL and explains the fallback to list_projects when project_id_required applies, though it could have more explicitly defined project_id as the project whose orders are synced.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start an order synchronization for the whole project now' and clarifies it pulls orders across ALL order connections at once. It distinguishes itself from test_order_connection and notes overlap with marketplace order sync, making sibling differentiation strong.

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 says when this tool is appropriate: project-wide sync is 'heavy and project-wide,' while 'to check a SINGLE connection use test_order_connection instead.' It also gives conditional guidance for project_id, telling the agent to call list_projects if project_id is required.

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