sync_transactions

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the cursor-based approach, delta-only incremental sync, SQLite storage, and hints about the 'days' parameter behavior. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the tool, explaining its behavior, and guiding on subsequent use. No wasted words.

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 sync tool with output schema, the description adequately covers behavior, storage, parameter hints, and follow-up. Missing discussion on error states or rate limits, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful context: 'days' is an 'Initial-pull window hint (Plaid honors its own default)' and 'institution_alias' empty string syncs all. This enhances understanding beyond 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?

Description clearly states 'Cursor-based transaction sync', 'First run pulls historical; subsequent runs pull only the delta', and 'Stores raw transactions in SQLite'. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like sync_liabilities or sync_balances.

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 provides a clear next-step recommendation ('Use rollup_month to write the Cash Flow.md monthly summary afterward'). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives like sync_all or sync_holdings.

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