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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description goes beyond by explaining the widget's UPDATE mode, that reconnection refreshes in place, and that no connection slot is consumed. This adds meaningful context about side effects and safe usage.

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, but the first sentence lists the returned data and the second explains the reconnect behavior. Every phrase carries useful information, and the structure is efficient despite its length.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns and the purpose of each URL. It also covers edge cases like re-authentication and stale data, making it complete for an agent to use 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 tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. According to the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exists, but the empty schema 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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Returns the saved bank connections for this install' and enumerates the returned fields. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools that list accounts or transactions, as it's focused on bank connections and the associated URLs.

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 provides clear context on when to use the returned reconnect_url (for re-authentication issues like MFA, LOGIN_ERROR, stale data) and clarifies that it doesn't consume a connection slot or require disconnecting. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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