Sync store orders

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real behavior beyond them: it starts Refresh Data for all stores, blocks up to wait_seconds, and can continue in the background. The 'running true' reference is unexplained (there is no `running` input and no output schema), which slightly muddies the disclosure but does not contradict any annotation.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then sequencing and the edge case. 'Then list_import_orders shows the orders' is slightly awkward but still earns its place as guidance.

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 zero-required-parameter action tool with no output schema, it explains what happens, how long it blocks, that it can continue in the background, and the empty-store outcome. Remaining gaps (what the response actually contains, whether previously imported orders are re-pulled) are minor given annotation coverage.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents range, default, and the '0 only starts it' behavior. The description restates the wait semantics ('waits up to wait_seconds') without adding format or interaction detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Pulls new orders') plus the scope ('from every connected store into ... Import list'), which is precise enough to distinguish it from list_import_orders and list_store_connections in the sibling set.

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 clear operational context: it triggers a refresh and the follow-up read is list_import_orders, plus the no-store case ('nothing is imported'). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing (e.g. versus list_import_orders alone), so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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