Refresh All Accounts

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that it is rate-limited by the bank, that idempotency holds only within rate-limit windows, that write consent is required unless AKAHU_AUTOMATION_BYPASS=true, and the return shape. These are non-obvious operational facts an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint alone.

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, then the return shape — every sentence carries signal. The explicit return signature is slightly redundant since an output schema exists, but it is brief enough not to be waste.

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-ish trigger, the description covers the action, timing guidance, rate-limit behavior, auth/consent requirement, and failure surface. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly and interpret the result is absent.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description needs to explain inputs, and it correctly spends no words doing so.

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?

States a specific verb ('Trigger Akahu to fetch fresh data') and an explicit scope ('every connected account'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling acct_refresh_account that targets a single account. No schema inspection needed to know what it 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?

'Use before a query that needs the freshest balance or transaction data' gives a clear triggering condition. What's missing is an explicit when-not or a named alternative (e.g. use acct_refresh_account for one account), though the 'every connected account' scope makes the split inferable.

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