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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses behavioral details: reconnect_url reopens widget in UPDATE mode without disconnecting or consuming a slot, and bulk mode returns {count, items}. This adds significant value.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the core functionality and layering details efficiently. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema and sparse input schema, the description comprehensively covers return formats, fields included, and special behavior of reconnect_url. It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage, the description fully explains the meaning and effect of each parameter: omitting 'item' returns all banks, passing 'item' returns a single bank, and 'item_ids' enables batch execution. This is essential for correct usage.

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 it returns the current status of a bank connection, listing specific status values and additional fields like executionStatus and reconnect_url. It distinguishes between single and bulk modes and implies differentiation from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like accounts or transactions.

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 explains when to omit or include the 'item' parameter for single vs. all banks, and mentions bulk support with item_ids. It implicitly guides usage but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools 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.