run_bank_sync

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is not read-only. The description confirms this with 'Sync', but adds no additional behavioral context such as whether syncing modifies existing data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Given annotations already indicate write behavior, the description misses the opportunity to add value.

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 short sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the optionality of the parameter. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and parameter behavior. It lacks explicit mention of side effects or return values, but given simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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 only parameter 'account' is fully described in the input schema with the same text as in the tool description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'Sync' and resource 'bank transactions from linked accounts' with scope 'specific account or all'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the external sources (GoCardless/SimpleFIN) and the action of syncing, which no other sibling tool does.

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 implies usage for syncing bank transactions from linked accounts but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks explicit context for selection among siblings.

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