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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the operation saves results, returns immediately, and runs fetches in the background. It also tells the agent how to observe the outcome ('call get_widget_data with source_id set to this report'), which is valuable behavioral context not present in annotations or schema.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the optional-parameter use case, and the async behavior with a follow-up call. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and informative annotations, the description covers the action, the optional-parameter semantics, the async behavior, and how to retrieve results. Nothing essential is missing for an agent 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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining when datasource_id matters ('after linking or unlinking it') and by framing get_widget_data's source_id as the way to read the refreshed numbers, which supplements the schema's bare field descriptions.

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 ('re-fetch'), a clear resource ('every data widget on a report'), and precise scoping ('with its current config and the report date range'). It clearly distinguishes this report-level refresh operation from the sibling refresh_widgets by emphasizing 'every data widget on a report'.

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?

The description gives concrete usage guidance: pass datasource_id specifically 'what you do after linking or unlinking it', and directs the agent to get_widget_data for reading results. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or contrast it with refresh_widgets, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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