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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it accesses a public status page, returns a global indicator, lists degraded components and open incidents, and flags incidents affecting connected banks. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's external dependency and output, without contradicting the readOnly/idempotent 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 well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, immediately differentiates from a related tool, provides concrete usage scenarios, and lists return elements. Every sentence contributes actionable information without redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the return fields (global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, `your_banks_affected`) and providing troubleshooting context. It is complete for an agent to select and interpret the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to explain. The description still adds value by describing what the return payload contains and how connected banks factor into the output, aligning with the baseline 4 for parameterless tools.

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 ('Checks') and resource ('LIVE operational status of the Open Finance provider'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling `openfinance_get_item_status` by noting it checks the provider's health rather than the user's own connection.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: when data looks incomplete or stale despite a connection showing UPDATED. It also clarifies the alternative (`openfinance_get_item_status`) and explains how to differentiate provider-side problems from connection issues, giving the agent a clear decision path.

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