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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context by warning that 'credential linkage is not proof of current access,' telling the agent that reported data may overstate actual access. This is a substantive caveat beyond the structured metadata.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the reported fields, followed by the caveat. Every clause carries information, though the phrasing 'Report recorded sync progress' is slightly dense and the list of fields could be punctuated more clearly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the description covers scope plus the important limitation about credentials versus live access. The only gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to sibling status/freshness tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste space restating an empty 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?

The description names a specific resource (sync status) and enumerates exactly what is reported: recorded progress, last successful sync, approved source coverage, and recovery guidance. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_freshness or get_feedback_status.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs to know how far a sync got or whether coverage is complete. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of when to prefer get_freshness or check_against_policy instead.

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