x5_sync_history

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

The description discloses that this is a network request, updates the local cache, and has first-run parameter requirements. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) rather than contradicting them. It does not explain the exact meaning of the 7-day overlap or return behavior, but offers meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by practical usage notes and a size-based exclusion. Every sentence contributes concrete value.

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 mutating sync tool with no output schema and only two date parameters, the description covers the key operational points: network side effect, local cache update, first-run requirements, overlap policy, and large-import alternative. It could be more complete by referencing the sibling status tool for determining first-run state, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions from/to and the first-run requirement plus 7-day overlap, which adds essential semantic context. However, it does not define each parameter individually or clarify the exact date-range semantics beyond the requirement.

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 clearly states a specific action: loading X5 receipts into local SQLite. It distinguishes this tool from the sibling get_* tools by indicating it performs a network sync that updates the local cache, rather than a read-only query.

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 explicit usage context: first run requires from/to, subsequent runs use a 7-day overlap, and large imports should be handled via CLI instead. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including an alternative execution path.

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