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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it waits up to ~60s, polls until completion, returns specific fields (`status`, `executionStatus`, `lastUpdatedAt`, `synced`, `needs_action`), and handles special cases like `needs_action` with `reconnect_url`. No annotation contradiction (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false are consistent with a write operation).

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. It efficiently combines multiple important details without being overly verbose.

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 the tool's complexity (sync, polling, wait modes, error handling, reconnect flow), the description covers all essential aspects. It describes the return format despite lacking an output schema, and addresses sibling tools for follow-up. Complete for the context.

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%, but the description adds complete meaning beyond the schema. It explains that `items` accepts an array of selectors (item_id, connector_id, connector_name, custom_label nickname) and that omitting it syncs all. It also explains `wait`: false for 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, waits for completion, and returns results. It uses specific verbs ('forces', 're-sync', 'waits') and distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_get_item_status (mentioned for re-checking if timed out).

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?

The description explicitly states when to use ('when a balance or transaction list looks stale') and what not to do ('WITHOUT disconnecting/reconnecting'). It provides alternatives: fire-and-forget mode with `wait: false`, and re-checking with openfinance_get_item_status for timed-out syncs.

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