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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the meaning of the returned reconnect_url (reopens widget in UPDATE mode for re-auth/MFA without disconnecting or consuming a slot), the response shape for bulk queries (`{ count, items }`), and the status value examples. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and packs return-field details, single/all behavior, and bulk support into three sentences. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence adds necessary information.

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?

With no output schema, the description sufficiently covers return values and special behaviors (reconnect_url, count/items). However, the unexplained `item_id` parameter and lack of explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling read tools (e.g., list_connections) leave minor completeness gaps.

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 description explains `item` (single vs. all) and `item_ids` (bulk), but the input schema has 0% coverage and the description completely omits `item_id`, leaving its relationship to `item`/`item_ids` unclear. This is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding which parameter to populate.

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 ('Returns the current status') and clearly identifies the resource ('a bank connection'). It also distinguishes the tool's scope: status with executionStatus, connector metadata, and reconnect_url, plus single/ALL/bulk modes, separating it from sibling list tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: omit `item` for all linked banks, pass `item` for a single bank, and use `item_ids` for batched execution. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools, but the usage contexts are unambiguous.

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