sync_pull

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (returns {syncTime, ...} entity lists), the meaning of time (0=full), and the data size warning. It doesn't mention authentication requirements (likely covered by siblings like auth_status) or pagination details, but given the output schema is absent, this description provides substantial behavioral context, earning a high score.

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-loads the core purpose and endpoint, and packs essential details like time semantics, default behavior, and a recommendation for cursor retrieval without fluff. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a sync operation with multiple entity types), the absence of an output schema, and the 2-parameter schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, endpoint, response structure, parameter behavior, and use-case advice. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 50%: time is documented in schema, but user_id is not. The description doesn't add details on user_id format or usage, but it does explain time semantics (0=full) beyond the schema's '0=full' hint, which is marginal. Since time is well-covered, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could have compensated for user_id's lack of documentation.

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 tool's purpose: incremental pull of all business data via a specific API endpoint, with a verb (sync/pull), resource (business data), and the distinction from full sync via time parameter. This makes it distinguishable from siblings like sync_start/sync_end without needing schema inspection.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: for new sync, first call get_book_last_time or get_me to get the cursor, and warns about full sync data size affecting output limits. This guides the agent on prerequisites and alternatives, making it extremely clear.

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