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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: the reconnect_url opens the widget in UPDATE mode for existing connections, does not consume a slot, and refreshes data in place. This goes well beyond what annotations provide, and there is no contradiction.

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 concise (3-4 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds unique value. There is no fluff. The structure clearly separates the main return description from the special behavior of reconnect_url.

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 read-only list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the return values and the purpose of reconnect_url. Minor gaps: it does not mention if the list includes all connections regardless of status, or how the add_connection_url is used exactly. But overall it covers the essential context.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the description adds value by detailing the returned fields and explaining the two URLs (reconnect_url and add_connection_url). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description fully compensates for lack of 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'saved bank connections', and lists the exact fields returned (connector_id, item_id, bank name, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_disconnect_bank by explaining the reconnect_url behavior, making the tool's unique role very clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the reconnect_url (for re-authentication, MFA connectors, LOGIN_ERROR, stale data) and notes it does not consume a connection slot or require disconnecting. However, it does not explicitly address when to prefer other sibling tools like openfinance_force_sync or openfinance_get_item_status, which could be clarified.

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