trigger_plaid_fetch

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

The description discloses two important behavioral aspects: a minimum 60-second delay between fetch requests and a maximum 5-minute fetch duration. These are not captured by the annotations (only openWorldHint is set), so the description adds valuable context beyond structured fields. It does not contradict 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then presenting optional parameters and a critical operational note. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is logical and 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?

For a simple trigger tool with no output schema and straightforward parameters, the description covers the purpose, options, and rate limiting. The only minor gap is the lack of mention of the return value or confirmation behavior, but this is not critical for an agent deciding to invoke the tool. The tool is adequately specified for its complexity.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the description's mention of optional scoping adds only a high-level summary. It does not introduce new semantics or format details beyond what the schema offers, aligning with the baseline score for full schema coverage.

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 action ('Trigger a fetch of latest data from Plaid') with a clear resource and purpose, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on Plaid data fetching rather than queries or updates. It also mentions optional scoping, which adds clarity without confusion.

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 explains when to use the tool (to fetch latest data) and describes optional scoping parameters (date range, account ID). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the sibling set, no direct alternative exists for triggering a Plaid fetch, so the guidance is sufficient.

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