Refresh Account

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the bank-side rate limit, refines idempotency as "within rate-limit windows" (consistent with idempotentHint=true, not contradicting it), and flags the write-consent requirement plus the AKAHU_AUTOMATION_BYPASS escape hatch. Also states the response shape, which is exactly the operational context an agent needs before calling a non-readOnly tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then constraints (rate limit, idempotency, consent), then the return shape. Every sentence carries a distinct, useful fact with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still previews the return fields and covers the two things that most often break this call in practice: bank rate limiting and the consent/bypass requirement. Nothing material is missing for a one-parameter mutation tool.

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 100% for the single account_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates "one specific account" and adds no format, prefix, or ID-source detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Specific verb ("trigger Akahu to fetch fresh data") plus a scoped resource ("one specific account"), which implicitly separates it from the sibling acct_refresh_all_accounts. An agent can tell exactly what the call does without opening the schema.

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?

"Use when you only need to refresh one account (e.g. checking before a payday lookup)" gives a concrete selection condition, and the single-account scoping effectively steers agents away from the bulk-refresh sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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