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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns executionStatus, connector metadata, and a reconnect_url that reopens the widget without disconnecting or consuming a slot. This provides extra context beyond annotations.

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 dense with information but remains readable and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, covering main purpose, usage variants, and bulk support. It is slightly longer than necessary but still concise for the amount of detail provided.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (status, executionStatus, connector metadata, reconnect_url). It covers major behaviors like batch support and the reconnect functionality. It does not miss critical details for a status retrieval tool, though it could be more explicit about the output format for the 'all banks' case.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'item' (omit for all, pass for single) and 'item_ids' for batch, but does not mention the 'item_id' parameter. This is a gap. While it partially compensates for missing schema descriptions, it is not complete for all three parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns the current status of a bank connection, with specific fields (UPDATED, UPDATING, etc.) and additional metadata including reconnect_url. It distinguishes between querying all banks (omitting 'item') or a single bank (passing 'item'), and also mentions bulk support with item_ids. This differentiates it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_connections.

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?

Provides clear usage scenarios: omit 'item' for all banks, pass 'item' for a single bank, and mentions bulk support with item_ids. It also explains the reconnect_url use case for re-authentication. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like openfinance_force_sync, so it's not a perfect 5.

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