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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it honors the user's plan (PF hides PJ banks, PJ covers both), non-Open-Finance connectors carry a caveat warning about auto-update, and the tool never dumps the whole catalog. 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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured: starts with the main action and return fields, then caveat, plan behavior, usage note, and requirement. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise by combining some details. Still, it is front-loaded with the most critical info.

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 that there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (connector id, access, audience, linked connections, connect_url) and behavioral details (caveat, plan honor). It also specifies the required nature of keywords and the order of use. This is complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains keywords[] with examples (['nubank','btg']) and clarifies its requirement. It explains include_accounts adds accounts to the return. Without the description, agents would have no guidance on these 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 it searches available bank connectors by keywords and returns specific fields (connector id, access, audience, linked connections, connect_url). It distinguishes this from other tools like 'connect' by explaining its role in the workflow. The verb 'search' and resource 'bank connectors' 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?

Explicitly states 'Call this BEFORE connecting to hand the user a one-click link to the right bank.' Also specifies that keywords[] is required (otherwise returns a hint) and advises surfacing the caveat for users to prefer Open Finance connectors. This provides clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.

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