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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it honors user's plan (PF hides PJ banks), returns ready connect_url, and surfaces caveat warnings for non-Open-Finance connectors. It also explains that keywords[] is required and that it never dumps the whole catalog. These details go beyond 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 a single, well-structured paragraph that packs essential information without being verbose. It is front-loaded with the main action and gradually adds details. A bullet-point structure could improve scannability, but it remains concise and clear.

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 (search with plan behavior, caveats, connect_url, return fields) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: return values, plan rules, caveat handling, and recommended usage. It leaves no major gaps for an AI agent to misuse the tool.

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 description must compensate. It explains 'keywords[]' with examples (e.g., ['nubank','btg']) and states it's required. It explains 'include_accounts' triggers returning accounts. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw 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 it searches bank connectors by name, returns connector id, access type, audience, linked connections, accounts, and a ready connect_url. It distinguishes itself as a pre-connect search tool, contrasting with sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace'. The specific verb 'search' and resource 'bank connectors' make purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool ('Call this BEFORE connecting') and explains the behavior without keywords (returns hint, never dumps catalog). It also advises preferring Open Finance connectors due to caveats on credential connectors. However, it does not directly compare to sibling tools like 'openfinance_list_connections' or 'marketplace', missing some alternative guidance.

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