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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, but the description adds valuable contextual details: the reconnect_url opens the widget in UPDATE mode for existing connections, does not consume a connection slot, and does not require disconnection. This is beyond what annotations provide and is consistent 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 moderately sized but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the reconnect_url behavior and its exceptions. No fluff or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly lists the return fields and explains the add_connection_url and reconnect_url behaviors. It covers the key usage scenarios and constraints, making the tool fully comprehensible 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter syntax, but it still adds context about the return fields, which is helpful given there is no output 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 the tool returns saved bank connections with specific fields (connector_id, item_id, bank name, reconnect_url, add_connection_url). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on connections and explaining the reconnect_url's update mode, which is unique.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the reconnect_url: for re-authentication (MFA connectors, LOGIN_ERROR, stale non-Open-Finance data). It also clarifies that it does not consume a connection slot and does not require disconnecting first, giving clear context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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