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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is low. The description nonetheless adds a real behavioral rule the annotations cannot express: current activity takes precedence over the latest finished result, and the output carries codes/messages that drive a retry-or-reconnect decision. It stops short of describing error/partial states or rate limits.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the precedence rule. The phrase "safe codes and messages" is slightly compressed and would benefit from a word of unpacking, but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't document return values, and it correctly focuses on the precedence rule and the actionable meaning of the status output. Combined with rich annotations and fully documented parameters, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are required, so the schema already defines workspaceRef and portfolioRef fully. The description only indirectly reinforces portfolio scoping ("across every wallet in a portfolio") without adding format or lookup semantics, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 and resource ("Check sync health") and scopes it precisely to "every wallet in a portfolio," so an agent knows this is a read-only status report rather than an action. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like full_resync, incremental_sync, or get_request_status, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention that codes tell you "whether to retry or reconnect credentials" signals this is a post-sync diagnostic, but no sibling (full_resync, incremental_sync) is named as an alternative and no when-not-to-use condition is given. The agent can infer the context but must guess at routing.

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