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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: returns global indicator (none/minor/major/critical), degraded components, open incidents, and a custom 'your_banks_affected' field. It also states it checks the provider's public status page, implying no side effects. 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 paragraph with three sentences, each adding value: purpose, usage guidance, output details. It is slightly longer than minimal but well-structured and efficient. No unnecessary words.

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 and no parameters, the description completely covers the tool's behavior: what it returns (global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, your_banks_affected) and how the information is obtained (public status page). It also sets context for when to use it, making it self-contained for an agent.

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?

The schema has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description implicitly confirms no parameters are needed by stating the tool checks provider status without requiring input. It does not need to add parameter-level semantics since none exist.

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 the verb 'Checks' and resource 'LIVE operational status of the Open Finance provider'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'openfinance_get_item_status' by explaining the provider vs connection status difference, and provides specific usage scenarios when data is incomplete or stale despite an updated connection.

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 tells when to use: 'whenever data looks incomplete or stale even though a connection shows UPDATED'. It also clarifies what it helps differentiate: provider-side problem vs reconnection need. No when-not-to guidance is needed as it's a safe read-only check.

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