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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the caveat about non-Open-Finance connectors needing periodic reconnection, how the user's plan affects visibility of PF/PJ banks, and 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 a single paragraph that covers all necessary aspects without being verbose. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds details. While it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points), it remains efficient and readable.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns: connector id, access, audience, linked connections, optional accounts, connect_url, and caveats. It also covers plan behavior and edge cases, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It does: keywords[] is described as required and illustrated with examples, and include_accounts is explained to return accounts when true. This adds meaning beyond the bare 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 that the tool searches bank connectors by name and returns specific fields like connector id, access type, audience, linked connections, and a ready connect_url. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'openfinance_list_connections' by focusing on search with keywords and providing a one-click link.

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 this tool before connecting to hand the user a one-click link. It mentions that keywords[] is required and that without it a hint is returned. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context makes it clear when this tool should be used relative to other connection-related tools.

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