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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it explicitly notes the tool does not force synchronization, clarifies it only returns ACTIVE connections, and enumerates the status values (estável/indisponível). No contradiction 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose with output scope, behavioral caveat (no sync), and usage trigger. Front-loaded with the main function, zero waste.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this description is complete: it conveys the resource, scoping (active only), status vocabulary, side-effect disclaimer, and the user intent it serves. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to add semantically; the empty schema combined with the description's output focus fully covers invocation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists active bank connections (Open Finance/Connected) and their status (stable/unavailable). It is clear and specific, but does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools, particularly organizze_get_open_finance_status, which appears closely related.

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 when-to-use guidance via the quoted user intent 'meu banco não atualiza' ('my bank is not updating'), which is excellent for agent intent-matching. However, it does not state when-not-to-use or name alternatives such as organizze_get_open_finance_status, leaving disambiguation implicit.

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