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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral detail: returns per-match fields, honors user plans, contains caveat warnings, and never dumps the catalog. While thorough, it does not mention pagination or response size limits, which would improve completeness.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids fluff, but the length (multiple sentences) is justified by the complexity. Slightly tighter phrasing could improve conciseness, but it remains efficient.

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 return values: connector id, access, audience, linked connections/accounts, and connect_url. It also covers the caveat behavior, plan filtering, and the hint on missing keywords. No critical gaps remain for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It does: keywords is required (despite schema lacking 'required'), described as an array of strings; include_accounts controls account inclusion. It clarifies that omitting keywords returns a hint. The description compensates well but lacks format examples or constraints (e.g., case sensitivity).

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 searches bank connectors by name and enumerates the returned fields (connector id, access, audience, linked connections/accounts, connect_url). It specifies the scope ('never dumps the whole catalog') and distinguishes from sibling tools by advising to call before connecting.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call before connecting, warns that keywords are required (otherwise returns a hint), explains how the tool handles plan filtering, and advises surfacing caveats to guide users toward Open Finance connectors for automation. No reference to alternative tools is needed given the clear context.

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