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

The description reveals critical behavior beyond the safety annotations: it blocks and waits up to ~60s, polls until the item stops updating, returns results/errors structure, and handles needs_action with reconnect_urls. It clearly explains what happens with wait:false and the meaning of timed_out, offering far more operational detail than the annotations alone.

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?

Although lengthy, the description is front-loaded with the essential action and wait behavior, then flows logically from usage context to parameters to return values and error states. Every sentence carries substantive information; no filler or repetition. The structure enhances readability for an agent rapidly parsing the description.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description compensates thoroughly by explaining the full return shape ({ results, errors }), per-result fields (status, executionStatus, lastUpdatedAt, synced, needs_action, reconnect_url, timed_out), and follow-up steps. It covers synchronous and asynchronous modes and different item selection scenarios, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema only declares types (boolean, array of strings), but the description adds rich semantics: items accepts selectors like item_id, connector_id, connector_name, or custom_label nickname, and omitting items syncs all linked banks. It also explains the wait parameter's fire-and-forget effect, making the parameters fully understandable.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Forces the bank to re-sync one or more connections NOW and WAITS for it to finish.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting with openfinance_get_item_status and explaining it syncs without disconnecting/reconnecting, which is unique among the listed tools.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when a balance or transaction list looks stale' with a rationale for why this tool is appropriate ('pulls fresh data WITHOUT disconnecting/reconnecting'). It also directs the user to openfinance_get_item_status for timed_out cases and explains the fire-and-forget option with wait:false, effectively covering alternatives and edge cases.

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