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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable detail: that consent is revoked, connection data is deleted, data becomes unavailable, and a reconnection URL is returned. This goes beyond the annotation.

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 consists of two clear, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action and consequences.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, result, and relevant context (reconnection URL). However, the lack of parameter explanation slightly reduces completeness.

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 sole parameter 'item' (string) has no schema description (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain what value it expects (e.g., bank identifier). The description mentions 'a specific bank' but does not directly map to the parameter.

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 it 'Revokes the Open Finance consent for a specific bank and deletes the connection data', using specific verbs and resources. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like 'openfinance_list_connections' or 'openfinance_force_sync'.

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 explains what the tool does and returns a URL for reconnection, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., checking connection status first). The context is implied but not elaborated.

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