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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details about reconnect_url (no slot consumption, no prior disconnection needed), which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction found.

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) yet informative. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds key behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 explains the main return values and the important reconnect_url behavior. It could potentially mention add_connection_url behavior, but it's not essential. Overall complete for a listing tool with rich annotations.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description does not need to explain them. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining return fields and URL behavior. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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, reconnect_url, add_connection_url). The purpose is distinct from sibling list tools by focusing on connections and providing connection-specific URLs.

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 usage guidance for the reconnect_url, specifying when to use it (re-authentication, LOGIN_ERROR, stale data) and noting it does not consume a slot or require disconnection. However, it does not compare usage to sibling tools or state when to use the tool itself (though the main use case is straightforward).

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