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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds significant behavioral context: it is LIVE (real-time), checks an external status page, and returns incident details filtered to connected banks. 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 efficiently structured: first sentence states core purpose, second explains use case, third lists return values. No redundant sentences, all information is valuable.

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 sufficiently explains return values (global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, your_banks_affected). The use case is fully covered, and the tool's role among siblings is well-defined.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description concisely explains what the tool does without needing any input. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no unnecessary param details.

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 checks the LIVE operational status of the Open Finance provider's public status page, distinct from the own connection status via openfinance_get_item_status. It specifies what is returned: global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, and affected banks.

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 explicitly tells when to use it (when data looks incomplete/stale despite UPDATED connection) and contrasts with the sibling openfinance_get_item_status, providing clear diagnostic guidance.

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