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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing that it MUTATES Codat state, that Codat re-pulls from connected source platforms, that it is asynchronous (enqueues rather than returning data), and which endpoint is called. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a mutating tool.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the mutation warning and scope, followed by async semantics and the follow-up tool. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information.

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?

Complete for a one-param async mutation with no output schema: it explains there is no returned data and how to poll status. It stops short of saying what happens to previously synced data or any cost/rate implications of a full refresh, which would round out the destructiveHint profile.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents companyId as a UUID. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: queue a refresh of ALL data types for a company, and cites the underlying endpoint POST /companies/{companyId}/data/all. The 'ALL' scope plus the sibling codat_refresh_data_type lets an agent distinguish bulk refresh from single-type refresh without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: asynchronous enqueue, and explicitly routes the agent to codat_get_data_status to track progress. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer this over codat_refresh_data_type (single type) or what preconditions (an existing connection) are required.

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