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

Discloses critical behavioral details: waits up to ~60s, returns results with final status, handles errors like MFA_REINTERACTION with reconnect_url. It also explains the timed_out scenario and suggests a sibling tool. Annotations indicate read-only is false, consistent with a write operation. No contradictions.

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 detailed but each sentence adds value, covering usage, parameters, return values, error states, and alternatives. It is well-structured with examples and edge cases. A minor improvement would be to trim some redundant phrasing, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given no output schema and annotations providing limited behavioral info, the description is comprehensive. It covers the sync process, timeout behavior, return format (results/errors, status fields), error handling with reconnect_url, and fallback instructions. It fully enables correct agent invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description thoroughly explains both parameters: items can be selectors (item_id, connector_id, etc.) or omitted for all connections; wait defaults to true (implied by 'WAITS') and setting false makes it fire-and-forget. This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the tool forces a bank to re-sync connections and waits for completion. It distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_get_item_status by specifying that this tool triggers a sync, while the sibling is for re-checking status. The verb 'force sync' and the target 'connections' are specific and unambiguous.

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 states when to use ('when a balance or transaction list looks stale') and what it achieves ('pulls fresh data WITHOUT disconnecting/reconnecting'). It also provides guidance on alternatives: if sync times out, re-check with openfinance_get_item_status. Additionally, it explains optional parameters like omitting items to sync all and setting wait: false for fire-and-forget.

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