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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent, but the description goes further by explaining the behavior of the returned reconnect_url (UPDATE mode, MFA re-entry, no slot consumption) and the add_connection_url. This adds significant context beyond the 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 three sentences with high information density. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds meaningful details about the reconnect_url and slot consumption. Every sentence earns its place.

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 enumerates the return fields and explains the add and reconnect URL behaviors. It gives a complete picture for a parameterless read-only list operation.

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, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information to add; the description appropriately focuses on output semantics instead.

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 for the install, listing specific fields. It is a specific verb+resource combination, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools like openfinance_list_accounts.

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 clear usage context for the reconnect_url (re-authentication scenarios, MFA, LOGIN_ERROR) and clarifies that disconnecting is not required. It does not explicitly name alternatives among sibling tools, but the tool's purpose is self-evident for listing connections.

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