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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the reconnect_url behavior, no connection slot consumption, and no need to disconnect first. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint are all true/false appropriately, and the description aligns with them.

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 and front-loaded with key information. It could be slightly shorter, but it provides essential details without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the fields returned. For a listing tool with no complex output, this is sufficiently complete. The context around reconnect_url adds completeness.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description clearly explains what the tool returns, adding value beyond schema. There is no need for parameter details.

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 that the tool returns saved bank connections for the install, listing specific fields like connector_id, item_id, bank name, and URLs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on connection listing and providing detailed usage of reconnect_url.

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 explains when to use the reconnect_url (for re-authentication, MFA errors, LOGIN_ERROR, stale data) and that it does not consume a connection slot. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other listing tools among siblings, though the context is clear enough.

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