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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent hints. Description adds detailed behavioral traits: returns reconnect_url that reopens widget in UPDATE mode without disconnecting, and describes return structure. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise paragraphs with no fluff. First paragraph explains core functionality and return values; second adds bulk support. Could be more structured but efficient.

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?

Describes return fields well but covers only one of two result shapes (all returns {count, items}, single not specified). No output schema, so missing detail on single-mode response. Annotations cover safety, but behavioral context is good.

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 must compensate. It explains 'item' (omit for all, pass for single) and 'item_ids' (bulk support), but 'item_id' is not mentioned, leaving ambiguity. Meaning is added for two out of three parameters.

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?

Clearly states it returns the current status of a bank connection with specific fields (status, executionStatus, metadata, reconnect_url). Distinguishes between single and all banks, and is distinct from sibling tools like openfinance_list_connections which list connections without status.

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?

Explains how to use for single vs. all banks (omit item for all, pass item for single) and mentions bulk support with item_ids. Provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use.

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