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

With annotations only marking readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false, the description carries the real behavioral load: waits up to a minute via the browser extension, returns 202 when the extension is offline and defers the refresh, and returns refresh_unsupported for other channels. This is exactly the async/latency/error context an agent needs.

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-loads purpose, then channel-specific behavior, then the trigger condition and error cases, in four tight sentences with no filler. Every sentence 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?

No output schema, but the description explains the meaningful return states (202 deferral, refresh_unsupported, and where refreshed data appears). Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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% — both accountId and workspaceId are already documented, including the nuanced workspaceId guidance — so the description adds little parameter detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('re-read') and resource ('one connected channel's metadata'), and grounds it in the sibling flow (list_accounts shows the refreshed list). An agent can distinguish this from list_accounts or publish without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit trigger: 'Call this when a category the person mentions is not in list_accounts yet.' It also states the negative case — other channels return refresh_unsupported because their metadata is live on every call — so when-not-to-use is covered.

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