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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains what unlinked/soft-deleted means via include_inactive, and it details the return payload fields, including consent_expiration_time and error_code/message. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary, a clarifying paragraph, and explicit Args/Returns sections. It front-loads the purpose and adds value without fluff. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation and interpretation.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it names the parameter, its default, and the return shape with all key fields. No output schema exists, so the Returns section appropriately covers what an agent would need to interpret results 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?

The schema has 0% description coverageebbovar, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining the include_inactive parameter. It does so clearly in the Args section: it defines 'unlinked / soft-deleted items' and states the default (False). The single parameter is fully covered.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Plaid bank connections (items)'), with a clear scope statement ('for the user'). It also details what each item representsholistically, distinguishing it from account-level tools like list_accounts and the sibling get_plaid_item.

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 clearly states the operation is user-scoped and explains the optional include_inactive flag, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria. Since the context is unambiguous and the sibling set includes get_plaid_item, some routing guidance could be inferred, but it is not explicitly provided.

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