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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that some connectors have a 'caveat' warning about needing periodic reconnection, which is critical behavioral transparency. Also explains the plan-dependent visibility and the hint behavior for missing keywords. No contradictions.

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 that packs many details. It is well front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve scanability. Still highly efficient.

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 the return values (connector id, access, audience, linked connections/accounts, connect_url, caveat). It also covers edge cases (missing keywords, plan differences). For a tool with many siblings, this description provides complete context for correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains both parameters: keywords as an array of strings (with example ['nubank','btg']) and that include_accounts triggers accounts inclusion. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it searches bank connectors by name (keywords array) and returns specific fields (id, access, audience, links, connect_url). It also mentions caveat warnings and plan handling. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, distinguishing it from siblings like 'connect' or 'authenticate'.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this BEFORE connecting to hand the user a one-click link' and notes that keywords are required (returns hint otherwise). Also explains plan behavior (PF/PJ segregation). Provides clear when-to-use and what-not-to-do, differentiating from alternatives.

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