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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what gets destroyed and rebuilt, plus a clear danger warning. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The warning is front-loaded, the action is stated directly, and the alternative is cleanly separated in the second sentence.

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?

Combined with the destructive annotation and fully described schema, the description gives an agent enough information to invoke the tool correctly and avoid misuse. It does not describe post-call results or verification, but that is a minor gap for a destructive resync tool with no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents all parameters, including the optional wallets behavior. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to given the complete schema coverage, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific destructive operation ('delete and rebuild... from source data') and identifies the affected resources (wallet transaction, journal, and cost-basis history). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from incremental_sync, making sibling differentiation clear.

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?

It explicitly states the only acceptable condition for use ('only after the user explicitly requests this destructive reset and accepts the consequences') and names the alternative for routine cases ('use incremental_sync for routine new activity'). This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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