Sync Product Database (Admin)

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the execution time (2-5 minutes), the scale of updates (~12,000 products), and the need to monitor progress with another tool. While annotations cover safety (destructiveHint: false) and idempotency, the description provides practical operational details that help the agent understand what to expect.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, adds key operational details (time, scale), and ends with a usage tip. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter mutation tool with good annotations but no output schema, the description is highly complete: it explains the action, time, scale, and monitoring method. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the return value or success indicators, but given the annotations and sibling tool for status checking, this is acceptable.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately confirms there are no parameters by not mentioning any, and it adds context about what the tool does without needing to explain inputs. This is efficient and avoids redundancy.

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 specific action ('Download latest Alko price list and update product database'), identifies the resource ('product database'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it's an admin operation that updates ~12,000 products. It goes beyond the title by explaining the scope and scale of the operation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Admin: Download latest Alko price list and update product database') and when to use an alternative ('Use get_sync_status to check progress'). It also indicates the time commitment ('Takes 2-5 minutes'), helping the agent decide when to invoke it versus other read-only sibling tools.

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