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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: reconnect_url does not consume a connection slot and does not require disconnecting first. No contradictions 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 concise: two sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence clearly states the return values, and the second adds critical behavioral detail. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 adequately lists the key fields (connector_id, item_id, bank name, URLs). However, it omits potential details like pagination or sorting, but for a zero-parameter read-only list, this is sufficient.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description carries full semantic weight. It adds meaning by detailing the return fields and the roles of reconnect_url and add_connection_url, which are not included in the 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 that the tool returns saved bank connections with specific fields (connector_id, item_id, bank name, reconnect_url, add_connection_url). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining the unique reconnect_url behavior, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 specific scenarios for using reconnect_url (re-authentication, MFA, LOGIN_ERROR, stale data), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternative list tools (e.g., list_accounts, list_transactions). Usage context is implied but not fully clarified.

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