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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, confirming safe behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral traits: reconnect_url opens in UPDATE mode, does not consume a connection slot, and does not require disconnecting first. 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?

The description is a well-structured paragraph that first states the main purpose, then lists returned fields, and explains the reconnect_url purpose with details. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's return structure and special reconnect_url behavior. It is complete for a list tool with good annotations.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so no param-level info is needed. The description explains the return fields and reconnect_url behavior, which is relevant context. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 returns saved bank connections and lists specific fields (connector_id, item_id, bank name, reconnect_url, add_connection_url). It distinguishes itself by explaining the reconnect_url behavior, differentiating from sibling tools.

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 guidance on when to use the reconnect_url (for re-authentication needs like MFA, LOGIN_ERROR, stale data) and clarifies it does not consume a connection slot. However, it does not compare to other sibling tools like openfinance_list_accounts or openfinance_get_item_status, leaving implicit usage context.

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