Check account refresh status

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

Annotations already provide strong safety/side-effect signals (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description adds no additional behavioral detail. The only added value is clarifying it checks completion. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

A single, direct sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no filler or irrelevant detail, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description, combined with annotations and output schema, covers the basics: what it checks and that it is safe/idempotent. However, it lacks important context about the behavior when no account_ids are provided (the parameter is optional in schema) and how to interpret the result in the broader refresh workflow. More guidance on polling or failure handling would improve completeness.

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% (despite the inline parameter description noting IDs come from get_accounts). The description does not compensate for this by explaining how account_ids impact the check. The parameter itself is self-explanatory, but the description fails to add meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('prior institution refresh') that clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like refresh_accounts by focusing on checking status rather than initiating a refresh. However, it could more explicitly state what the result is used for.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies that it should be used after a refresh is initiated, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having initiated a refresh) or what to do if a refresh is in progress. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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