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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds significant behavioral context: the caveat warning about non-auto-updating connectors, plan-specific filtering, and the hint behavior when keywords are omitted. It also discloses that the tool never dumps the whole catalog. 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: main purpose, return fields, caveat, plan behavior, and usage timing. It is front-loaded with the core function and keyword examples, then layers necessary details without fluff.

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 covers return values (connector id, access, audience, linked connections, accounts, connect_url), edge cases (caveat warning, plan limitations), and usage prerequisites (keywords required, call before connecting). It is exceptionally complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 description fully explains both parameters: keywords[] with examples ('nubank','btg') and being required (despite schema not marking it required), and include_accounts=true to include accounts. Since schema coverage is 0%, this description compensates completely, adding meanings like the caveat and connect_url behavior tied to keywords.

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 uses a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('bank connectors'), clearly stating it searches by name with keywords. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openfinance_list_connections by focusing on available connectors and returning a connect_url, access, and audience. The plan behavior and caveat details further cement its unique purpose.

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 instructs to call 'BEFORE connecting' and explains that keywords[] is REQUIRED, with a hint returned otherwise. It also advises preferring Open Finance connectors for automation when a caveat exists, and clarifies plan-based visibility (PF hides PJ, PJ covers both). This provides clear context on when and how to use the tool.

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