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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: explains that reconnect_url opens in UPDATE mode, does not consume a connection slot, and does not require disconnecting. This goes beyond annotations with no contradiction.

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, conveying all necessary information without fluff. The second sentence is somewhat lengthy but remains focused. Could be slightly restructured but is reasonably concise.

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 explains the returned fields (connector_id, item_id, bank name, URLs) and their semantics. It covers the purpose and behavior of the URLs sufficiently for a simple list tool with full annotation coverage.

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?

No parameters exist (baseline 4 per rules). Schema coverage is 100% and description adds no parameter info since there are none. Score reflects baseline.

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 it returns saved bank connections and lists specific fields (connector_id, item_id, bank name, reconnect_url, add_connection_url). It distinguishes from sibling list tools like openfinance_list_accounts and openfinance_list_transactions which focus on different resources.

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 usage guidance for the reconnect_url (for re-authentication, MFA, LOGIN_ERROR, stale data) which indirectly helps when to use the list tool to obtain those URLs. However, it lacks explicit context on when to call the list tool itself versus other connection-related tools like openfinance_get_item_status.

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