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

Annotations already convey safety and open-world traits, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the operation is asynchronous (requestId) and preserves existing transaction/accounting history. It does not discuss idempotency implications despite idempotentHint being false, but the annotation lowers that burden.

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 dense sentences deliver the core behavior, the trigger context, and the follow-up step with zero filler. Key information is front-loaded and 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?

The description covers when to use the tool, what it preserves, and how to track the result; the schema covers parameters and an output schema is present. The only notable gap is that it does not explicitly route the agent to full_resync when a complete rebuild is needed.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no param-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline score of 3.

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: 'Pull only recent blockchain and wallet activity' while explicitly protecting existing transaction and accounting history. This naturally distinguishes the tool from full_resync and other sync-related siblings without needing to open their schemas.

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 gives concrete triggers: 'use this routine refresh before reports or when new activity is missing' and tells the agent to track the resulting requestId with get_request_status. It does not explicitly name full_resync as the alternative for full rebuilds or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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