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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: coalescing semantics ('a second call while one is queued or running, or within a minute of it, returns the same request'), the size/spend gates, the fact that a failed refresh leaves the live version untouched, and the fact that the run usually starts after the response. The coalescing window sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false, but since a later call does start a new run, this is a server-side debounce rather than a genuine contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then example, then return shape, then follow-up tools — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is on the long side and some routing detail (held-run workflow) could arguably be pushed to the sibling tools' own docs, but nearly every sentence carries operational 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return shape ({table_id, status, refresh: {request_id, status, run_id, execution_mode}, dashboard_url}), plus failure semantics and how to locate and watch the resulting run (get_table/list_runs/run_events). For a two-parameter mutation tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the semantics, and it largely does: it supplies an example payload and explains expected_version's provenance ('Pass expected_version from that read'), tying it to the get_table read as an optimistic-concurrency guard. table_id's meaning is left to the example rather than stated, which is the only gap.

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: 'Runs the refresh the table's schedule would run, now: forward from where its last successful run reached.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling resync_table ('the explicit full reread') and explains what it will NOT do ('never rereads every source'), so an agent can separate it from full-reload tools without opening 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?

Gives prerequisites and routing explicitly: 'Read get_table first: only a live table refreshes, and its refresh readiness says whether this recipe can.' It names the alternative for the full-reread case (resync_table), the incremental_unavailable failure route, and the escalation path for held runs (get_run for the projection, then confirm_run on the person's word).

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