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

Discloses detailed behavior: polling up to 60s, return format, error states (needs_action with reconnect_url), timed_out handling, and that it pulls fresh data without disconnecting. Annotations are minimal, so description carries burden and does so thoroughly.

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. Well-organized: core action first, then usage, parameter details, return values, error handling, optional behavior. Appropriate length given complexity.

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?

Covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, parameters, expected output, error states, and optional modes. No output schema but description adequately explains return structure. Complete for a two-parameter tool.

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 fully explains both parameters: 'items' as array of selectors (with types listed) and omitting syncs all; 'wait' boolean with default behavior and fire-and-forget option. Provides complete semantics.

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?

Description clearly states the function: force re-sync one or more connections and wait for completion. Distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning use case for stale data and contrasting with disconnect/reconnect.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context ('when a balance or transaction list looks stale') and optional modes (sync all or specific items, wait vs fire-and-forget). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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