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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it mentions the caveat for non-Open-Finance connectors and that without keywords it returns a hint, never dumping the whole catalog. 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 relatively long but every sentence adds value, covering purpose, usage, parameter details, and special behaviors. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (connector id, access, audience, linked connections, connect_url, caveat) and covers plan behavior and the hint response for empty keywords. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining that keywords is an array of strings (with examples) and is required, and that include_accounts affects whether accounts are returned. This adds essential meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'searches' and resource 'bank connectors', clearly stating it returns connector id, access type, audience, linked connections, and connect_url. It distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_list_connections by focusing on keyword search.

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 states 'Call this BEFORE connecting to hand the user a one-click link to the right bank' and notes that keywords[] is REQUIRED. It also explains how the tool honors the user's plan, providing clear context for usage.

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