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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false. Description adds extensive behavioral details: it waits up to ~60s, polls, returns results with specific fields like status, executionStatus, lastUpdatedAt, synced, needs_action, reconnect_url, and timed_out. No contradictions with annotations.

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 relatively long but well-structured, starting with the main action and then explaining details in separate sentences. Each sentence adds value, though some information (e.g., the reconnect_url section) could be slightly condensed without losing clarity.

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 description thoroughly explains return object (results, errors, fields), handles error conditions (timed_out, needs_action), and provides reconnection guidance. Given the tool's complexity and two parameters, the description covers all necessary context for correct usage.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It covers both parameters: 'items' as an array of selectors (with example types) and that omitting it syncs all connections; 'wait' as boolean with implied default (true) and explains behavior for false. Adds meaning beyond schema, but could explicitly state default for wait.

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?

Clearly states it forces a bank to re-sync connections and waits for completion. Uses specific verb 'forces' and resource 'connections'. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it pulls fresh data without disconnecting/reconnecting, and specifies the use case (stale balances/transactions).

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?

Explicitly says when to use (stale data) and when to set wait: false (fire-and-forget). Also mentions alternative action for timed_out (re-check with openfinance_get_item_status) and explains the needs_action scenario. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to other sibling tools, but still provides strong context.

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