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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds behavioral context: the reconnect_url behavior (opens UPDATE mode, refreshes in place) and that it does not consume a slot or require disconnecting. 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 relatively concise but contains necessary details about both the main output and the reconnect_url behavior. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds usage notes, keeping it efficient without unnecessary verbiage.

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 parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description fully covers what the tool returns and how to use the reconnect_url. No gaps remain for the agent to need additional information.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, compensating for the lack of output schema.

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 returns saved bank connections with specific fields (connector_id, item_id, bank name, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like openfinance_list_accounts or openfinance_disconnect_bank. The verb 'Returns' and the list of fields define the function precisely.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the reconnect_url (needs re-authentication, MFA errors, stale data) and states it does not consume a slot or require disconnecting. However, it does not contrast this list tool with other list siblings (e.g., openfinance_list_transactions) for general listing scenarios.

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