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

Disclosure goes beyond annotations: explains the sync process (PATCH + polling), side effects (updates lastUpdatedAt, no disconnect needed), and all possible return fields (status, executionStatus, synced, needs_action, reconnect_url, timed_out). Clear about wait flag behavior and timeout.

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?

Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action and key parameters. Uses clear formatting (bold for emphasis, structured lists for return values) to improve readability without wordiness.

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 moderate complexity, the description is fully complete. Explains return structure (results, errors), all status fields, error handling (needs_action with reconnect_url), timeout fallback (timed_out, re-check), and the fire-and-forget mode. No gaps remain for agent decision-making.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters. 'items' is detailed as an array of selectors (item_id, connector_id, connector_name, custom_label) with the option to omit for all connections. 'wait' is explained as boolean with default inferred as true and alternative false behavior. Adds meaning that the bare schema lacks.

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 resync of bank connections and waits for completion. It specifies the HTTP method (PATCH), polling behavior, and timeout (~60s). The verb 'force_sync' is well-defined and distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_get_item_status (status check) and openfinance_list_connections (listing).

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 advises using when balances/transactions are stale. Explains how to sync all connections (omit items) vs specific ones (pass selectors). Provides actionable guidance for special cases: set wait:false for fire-and-forget, use reconnect_url for authentication issues, and re-check with openfinance_get_item_status if timed_out.

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