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

The description richly details side effects and runtime behavior: polling until completion (~60s timeout), return structure with status/executionStatus/lastUpdatedAt/synced, needs_action states with reconnect_url, and timed_out semantics. It even explains the UX implication (user re-auth in UPDATE mode). Annotations are minimal (readOnly=false, destructive=false) but consistent; the description adds far more than annotations could convey.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It opens with the core action, then usage, then parameters, then response format, then error states, then timeout handling. No filler or repetition; the structure flows logically from action to details.

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 (waiting, polling, re-authentication, multiple result states), the description covers all essential aspects: return shape, failure modes, timeout behavior, and relationship to sibling tools. No output schema exists, so the explicit description of results and fields is necessary and complete.

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 fully explains both parameters: items as an array of selectors (item_id, connector_id, connector_name, custom_label nickname) with the option to omit for all banks, and wait as a boolean controlling synchronous vs fire-and-forget. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Forces the bank to re-sync one or more connections NOW and WAITS for it to finish.' It clearly states the tool's action and scope, and distinguishes it from siblings like openfinance_get_item_status (polling status) and openfinance_disconnect_bank (no disconnection involved). The mention of the HTTP method (PATCH /items/:id) further grounds its purpose.

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 guidance is provided: 'Use this when a balance or transaction list looks stale' and explicitly states what it does NOT do: 'WITHOUT disconnecting/reconnecting.' It also gives an alternative for timeout cases: 're-check with openfinance_get_item_status.' The wait parameter's fire-and-forget behavior is explained, making usage conditions unambiguous.

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