Refresh Account

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: the operation triggers an asynchronous data pull and returns a job ID rather than immediate data. It doesn't mention failure modes, rate limits, or connection prerequisites, but the async behavior is the most important transparency point and it is present.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and immediately states the important result (job ID to poll). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or vague filler.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what happens, for which account, and what the caller receives. It could slightly improve by mentioning that the returned job ID should be used with poll_job, but the phrase 'to poll' adequately hints at the next step.

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?

The only parameter, accountId, is fully documented in the schema with 'Account ID to refresh', and the description merely restates the concept of 'a specific account'. With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Trigger a fresh data pull') and a precise resource ('a specific account'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also states the return value (a job ID to poll), which distinguishes it from read-only tools like get_transactions or list_accounts.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when fresh bank data is needed for an account, and the caller should expect an asynchronous job to poll. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools like poll_job and get_transactions.

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