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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that current activity takes priority over the latest finished result, and that the response includes codes and messages guiding retry or credential reconnection.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral nuance fits compactly in the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With a full output schema, complete parameter schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. It would be slightly stronger if it named the sibling tools to avoid (e.g., full_resync) or the conditions under which a resync should be triggered, but the current text covers what the tool does and what the response conveys.

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%, with both parameters (workspaceRef and portfolioRef) clearly documented as exact names or slugs. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema fully carries the burden.

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 states a specific verb ('Check'), a specific resource ('sync health across every wallet in a portfolio'), and the scope of the operation. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like full_resync or incremental_sync because it is strictly a read-only status check.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: to inspect sync health across a portfolio's wallets. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-only framing and the mention of 'retry or reconnect credentials' imply it is the diagnostic step before acting.

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