run_background_sync

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

The description discloses partial_success behavior (failing step logged, run continues) and return fields (run id, trace id, status, step summaries). However, no annotations are provided, and details on side effects, idempotency, or rate limits are absent.

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 concise, with two brief paragraphs that front-load the purpose and then detail orchestrated steps and behavior. It could be tighter by avoiding redundancy with sibling tool names, but overall efficient.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks essential context on parameter semantics and return details beyond a brief mention. Error handling beyond partial_success is not covered, and the tool's relationship to many sibling tools is only implied.

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% and the description provides no information about any of the 5 parameters (as_of_date, options, run_type, trigger_type, db_path). The description fails to explain parameter meaning, format, or usage.

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 the tool runs the finance pipeline as an auditable background run, and lists the orchestrated steps (scan, reconcile, detect drift, preview). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are individual steps.

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 implies usage for running the full pipeline by listing orchestrated steps, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs individual step tools, nor provides exclusions or alternatives.

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