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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it mentions that the reconnect_url allows re-authentication without disconnecting or consuming a connection slot, and that bulk support is available. No contradictions with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality. It is efficient but somewhat dense; could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., separate lines for bulk vs single). Still, each part earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers return fields (status, executionStatus, connector metadata, reconnect_url) and the bulk response shape ({ count, items }). With three parameters all explained and a simple read operation, the description is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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 that 'item' is used for a single bank, 'item_ids' for bulk, and implies 'item_id' might be an alias (though not explicitly clarified). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though a brief explanation of 'item_id' would improve clarity further.

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 the current status of a bank connection, lists example statuses, and specifies return fields (status, executionStatus, connector metadata, reconnect_url). It distinguishes between omitting 'item' (all banks) and passing 'item' (single bank), and notes bulk support with 'item_ids'. This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiates from other 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 explicitly explains when to omit 'item' for all banks, pass 'item' for a single bank, and use 'item_ids' for bulk execution. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context is clear given the sibling tools list (e.g., connect, disconnect, sync) which serve different purposes.

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