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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains that reconnect_url opens in UPDATE mode, does not consume a slot, and does not require disconnecting. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, which aligns with description.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds essential information. No wasted words.

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 list tool with no parameters, the description covers all relevant aspects: what is returned, the special URLs, and their behavioral implications. No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the output.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the structure of the output (connector_id, item_id, etc.) and the significance of reconnect_url and add_connection_url, which are not in the schema.

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, listing specific fields like connector_id, item_id, bank name, reconnect_url, and add_connection_url. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on listing connections and explaining the reconnect functionality.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use the reconnect_url (for re-authentication due to MFA, LOGIN_ERROR, stale data) and notes it does not consume a connection slot or require disconnecting. However, it does not contrast directly with alternative tools like openfinance_get_item_status or openfinance_force_sync.

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