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

The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: it "runs in the background," so the agent knows not to expect an immediate result. However, it leaves a tension with readOnlyHint=false by framing the operation purely as "read," and it never says how the re-read outcome is retrieved (list_runs/get_run exist as siblings), so a follow-up path is undisclosed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with platform and purpose, with the scope parenthetical and the background-execution note appended. No filler, though "have Relvato read the store again" is a slightly indirect way to phrase the action.

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 one-parameter trigger with no output schema, the description covers what happens and that it is asynchronous, which is most of what an agent needs. It is still incomplete on the async lifecycle — no indication of how long the re-read takes or which sibling retrieves 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?

Only one parameter (siteId) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantic load and the baseline of 3 applies. The description's parenthetical enumerates what is re-read but says nothing about the parameter itself, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb + resource: "have Relvato read the store again" on WordPress/WooCommerce, with the re-read scope spelled out (product to buy, checkout type, guest checkout, currency). It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, but it never contrasts itself with adjacent tools like verify_site or trigger_scan, so it stops short of a 5.

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 an explicit trigger condition: use it "after the store changed" — that is a real when-to-use signal, not just an implied one. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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