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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that missing keywords returns a hint rather than dumping catalog, that results vary by user plan, and that some connectors carry a caveat warning. This goes beyond the annotations' safety profile and informs the agent of dynamic result shaping.

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 a single dense paragraph but every sentence contributes essential information (purpose, return fields, caveats, plan logic, usage timing, required parameter). It is efficiently written though could benefit from a bulleted breakdown for even easier scanning; still, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's nuanced behavior (plan-based filtering, caveats, required keywords), the description covers all necessary aspects: return values, error handling for missing keywords, plan logic, and a clear call-to-action. The context makes it fully actionable for an agent to select and invoke 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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description compensates fully: it explains `keywords` with an example array and clarifies it is required despite the schema not marking it so; it also explains `include_accounts` controls whether linked accounts are returned. Both parameters are given practical meaning beyond type definitions.

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 clearly states the tool 'Searches the available bank connectors by name', specifying the verb, resource, and purpose. It details the return fields (connector id, access, audience, connect_url) and distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on connector search and connect_url generation, unlike other tools that handle connections, accounts, or transactions.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Call this BEFORE connecting', providing clear context for when to use it. It also explains plan-based behavior (PF/PJ) and how to handle caveats. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for other situations, though the 'before connecting' directive implies a separation from post-connection tools.

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