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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the tool queries a public status page, returns a global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, and specifically flags those affecting the user's connected banks. It also clarifies the scope (provider health) vs. connection status, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 focused paragraph of about 120 words, with the main purpose stated upfront, followed by usage guidance and output details. Every sentence adds information, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is concise yet complete.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and only basic read-only annotations, the description fully compensates by explaining the return value contents (global indicator, components, incidents, affected banks) and the usage scenario. This is comprehensive for a status-checking tool with this simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters but does mention that `your_banks_affected` appears when banks are connected, which is output-related rather than parameter-related. This 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's function with a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('LIVE operational status of the Open Finance provider'). It explicitly differentiates it from the sibling tool `openfinance_get_item_status`, which checks connection health, 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: whenever data looks incomplete or stale despite a connection showing UPDATED. It also explains what the tool reveals (upstream outage, known incident) and how it helps differentiate provider-side problems from connection issues, effectively stating when not to use it (for connection-level diagnosis).

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