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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond the annotations: it never dumps full catalog without keywords, returns a hint when keywords empty, honors user's plan (PF hides PJ banks, PJ covers both), and surfaces caveat warnings for non-Open-Finance connectors. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradiction.

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 a single dense paragraph containing all necessary information. It front-loads the main purpose and key returned fields. While slightly long, every sentence adds value, and the density is justified by the tool's complexity. Could be broken into bullet points for easier scanning.

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 only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: purpose, when to call, required parameters, return content, plan behavior, and caveat handling. It enables an AI agent to use the tool correctly without relying on external 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: keywords[] is required (returns hint if empty), and include_accounts controls whether linked accounts are returned. It adds real-world meaning (pass bank names as keywords) that goes beyond the type definitions, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 searches bank connectors by name, lists the returned fields (id, access, audience, linked connections, connect_url), and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying its role in the connection workflow. It uses a specific verb ('searches') and resource ('bank connectors'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to call this BEFORE connecting, and provides context on plan behavior and caveat handling. While it doesn't name alternative tools for when not to use it, the sibling list and the focus on pre-connection search make the usage clear. The instruction that keywords[] is REQUIRED also guides proper invocation.

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