sync

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it specifies data sources (Finnhub, Yahoo, FRED), storage format (USD), incremental updates ('increment-only' for fx), and dependencies (API keys). No relevant behavioral aspects are omitted.

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, using three sentences to cover the purpose and all scope details. No redundancy; every word adds value. The structure is logical: general purpose first, then specific scopes, then default.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, all scope options with detailed explanations, dependencies, and default behavior. It is self-contained and sufficient for correct tool invocation.

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?

The input schema provides only enum values with no descriptions. The description adds substantial meaning by explaining what each scope does, the data sources involved, and the default behavior. This far exceeds the schema's bare enumeration.

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 the tool refreshes local caches and details each scope option. The verb 'refresh' combined with 'local caches' and explicit scope explanations differentiates it from sibling tools that are primarily for viewing or adding data.

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?

Description provides clear context for each scope, including data sources and required API keys. While it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, the context makes it evident that this is for cache refreshing, distinct from other operations.

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