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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns a global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, and a 'your_banks_affected' field that filters incidents relevant to connected banks. 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 a single, relatively long sentence (approx. 70 words) that packs purpose, usage guidance, and return details. It is front-loaded with the core action. While efficient, it could be slightly more terse by splitting into multiple sentences for readability.

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 fully explains the return values (global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, your_banks_affected). Together with annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior and zero parameters, the description provides complete context for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. With 0 params, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not attempt to, so this score is appropriate.

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 checks the live operational status of the Open Finance provider, using the specific verb 'Checks' and resource 'LIVE operational status of the Open Finance provider (its public status page)'. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'openfinance_get_item_status' by contrasting provider health vs. own connection health.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'whenever data looks incomplete or stale even though a connection shows UPDATED'. It further explains the differential diagnosis benefit: distinguishing provider-side problems from connection issues. This clearly helps an agent decide when to invoke this tool over alternatives.

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