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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the reconnect_url reopens the widget for re-authentication without disconnecting or consuming a slot, and omitting 'item' returns a different structure. There is no contradiction.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence delivers the core purpose, followed by parameter usage and bulk support. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary words.

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 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields and the two modes of operation. It could mention potential pagination for bulk results, but the provided details are sufficient for most use cases.

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 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description explains the 'item' parameter and the bulk 'item_ids', but does not clarify the role of 'item_id' (likely an alias for 'item'?). This leaves ambiguity, and the description could be more explicit about all parameters.

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, listing specific fields (UPDATED, executionStatus, connector metadata, reconnect_url). It distinguishes between fetching a single bank's status and all banks, which differentiates it from siblings like openfinance_list_connections.

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 use the 'item' parameter (single bank) versus omitting it (all banks), and mentions bulk support with item_ids. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, though the sibling list implies other tools for different operations.

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