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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: reconnect_url reopens the widget in UPDATE mode, does not require disconnecting, and does not consume a connection slot. 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?

The description is informative but somewhat lengthy. It front-loads the core purpose and then details the reconnect_url behavior. Could be slightly more concise but still well-structured.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates all returned fields (connector_id, item_id, bank name, reconnect_url, add_connection_url) and explains the behavior of reconnect_url. For a simple list tool, this is complete.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info. Schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 returns saved bank connections with specific fields (connector_id, item_id, bank name, reconnect_url, add_connection_url). It distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_list_accounts by focusing on connections rather than accounts or transactions.

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 reconnect_url (for re-authentication, MFA, LOGIN_ERROR, stale data) and notes it does not consume a connection slot or require disconnecting. It implies not to use for new connections (use add_connection_url). However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like openfinance_get_item_status.

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