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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds important behavioral context: the reconnect_url reopens the widget in UPDATE mode for re-authentication without disconnecting or consuming a slot. It also describes the return format for single vs. all banks. No rate limits or data freshness are mentioned, but overall good transparency.

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, using two sentences and a line about bulk support. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the first sentence is somewhat long and could be split for readability. No unnecessary words, but slight improvement in structure would earn a 5.

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 complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers return values, behavior differences, and reconnect functionality. It lacks explanation for `item_id` and does not mention authentication requirements or error scenarios. With siblings, it mostly stands alone but could better distinguish from openfinance_list_connections.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It explains `item` (single bank) and `item_ids` (bulk), but does not explain `item_id`. The relationship between `item` and `item_id` is unclear, leaving ambiguity. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the current status of a bank connection, listing possible statuses like UPDATED and LOGIN_ERROR, plus executionStatus, connector metadata, and reconnect_url. It distinguishes between single bank (using `item`) and all linked banks (omitting `item`), and mentions bulk support with `item_ids`. This specificity differentiates it from sibling tools 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 provides clear context on when to use `item` versus omitting it, and mentions bulk support. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like openfinance_list_connections, which might return similar data. No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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