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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with the description's 'Checks' verb. The description adds behavioral context: it returns global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, and flags incidents affecting connected banks, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 long but each sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose ('Checks the LIVE operational status') and then provides usage guidance and return value details. It could be slightly more concise, but it is 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, affected banks). It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly, including the distinction from the sibling tool and when to invoke it.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no params to cover). The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate.

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 checks the LIVE operational status of the Open Finance provider, distinguishing it from the user's own connection status via `openfinance_get_item_status`. It specifies the verb 'Checks' and the resource 'provider status', and differentiates from siblings by naming the alternative tool.

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 tells when to use this tool: 'whenever data looks incomplete or stale even though a connection shows UPDATED'. It also explains what it helps diagnose (upstream outage vs. connection issue) and mentions the alternative tool `openfinance_get_item_status` for the user's own connection.

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