Fetch transactions from linked banks

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

Annotations mark it destructive and non-idempotent; the description adds crucial context beyond them – it's slow and rate-limited by the bank, fails rather than hollow-succeeding, and returns accounts synced, not transaction counts. It also warns follow-up is needed for counts, which is behavior annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and common case, then rate-limit warning, then failure/return behavior. No filler and every clause adds actionable context.

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?

Covers prerequisites (bank link required), side effects (slow, rate-limited), failure modes, and return semantics (accounts synced, not counts), plus a routing hint. Complete for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the accountId description already states 'Sync only this account. Omit to sync every linked account.' The description repeats that semantics without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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 (trigger bank sync) and resource (linked bank accounts / transactions), and adds scope detail ('optionally for one account'). Distinguishes from sibling sync_budget and from read tools like search_transactions by name.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it deliberately vs. alternatives: 'call it deliberately rather than before every read,' and directs to search_transactions for counts. Failure conditions (account does not exist, closed, no bank link) give clear exclusions.

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