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

Adds significant value beyond annotations: describes returned fields (status, executionStatus, connector metadata, reconnect_url), explains behavior difference when `item` is omitted vs. provided, and mentions bulk support. No contradiction 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?

Information is front-loaded with core purpose and usage. Could be slightly more concise by combining sentences, but structure is logical and no wasted text.

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 input schema (3 params, no enums, no output schema) and annotations, the description fully covers tool behavior: return fields, bulk support, single vs. all distinction, and reconnect URL usage. No gaps for expected usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that omitting `item` returns all banks, and passing `item` returns a single bank. Also clarifies `item_ids` for batch. Does not differentiate `item` vs `item_id`, but overall adequate.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool returns the current status of a bank connection with specific status values. It distinguishes between retrieving status for all linked banks (omit `item`) and a single bank (pass `item`), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like `openfinance_list_connections`.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: to get status, to obtain a reconnect URL without disconnecting. It implies batch usage via `item_ids`. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, so slightly below top score.

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