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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds critical behavioral traits: a cap of 5000 transactions per account with a truncated flag, potential provider_incident block explaining incomplete data, and that it resolves accounts internally. These go 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 thorough but somewhat lengthy. It is well-structured with key sections (bullets in original? but here as prose). Every sentence adds value, but could be more concise by combining some sentences. Still, it remains readable and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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, the description thoroughly explains the return structure: totals, monthly evolution, top expenses/revenues, per-account breakdown, and the optional raw rows with detail levels. It also covers edge cases like truncation and provider incidents. This is complete for a complex tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains every parameter: item (connector_id/connector_name/item_id), from/to (ISO dates), granularity (monthly/raw), detail (compact/rich/raw with explanation of each), type (BANK/CREDIT), and item_ids for bulk. The meaning of top_n is implied by 'largest N'.

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 provides 'consolidated cash-flow analysis for a whole bank CONNECTION over a period, in ONE call.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_list_accounts by explicitly saying you don't need to call them first. The verb 'analyze' and resource 'connection transactions' are specific.

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 gives explicit guidance: when to set granularity to monthly vs raw, when to use detail options, and filters. It states usage scenarios like 'análise anual/mensal, fluxo de caixa'. It also advises that for all linked banks you omit the item parameter.

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