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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: the reconnect_url reopens the widget in UPDATE mode without disconnecting or consuming a slot. No contradictions with 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 two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and return values. While the first sentence is dense, it efficiently conveys multiple details without redundancy.

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 covers return elements (status, executionStatus, metadata, reconnect_url) and behavior for single vs. bulk queries. It could clarify conflict handling when both `item` and `item_ids` are provided, but overall it's sufficient for a read-only status tool.

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 the description must explain parameters. It clarifies `item` for single bank retrieval and `item_ids` for batched execution, but does not explain `item_id` (possibly an alias). The description partly compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 specifies the tool returns the current status of a bank connection with enumerated values (UPDATED, UPDATING, LOGIN_ERROR, etc.), along with executionStatus, connector metadata, and reconnect_url. It distinguishes between single-item and bulk retrieval, setting it apart from siblings 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?

The description explains when to omit or include the `item` parameter for single vs. all banks, and mentions bulk support via `item_ids`. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like `openfinance_list_connections` or state when not to use this tool.

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