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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds significant behavioral context: it explains the exact behavior of reconnect_url (reopens widget in UPDATE mode, refreshes data in place, does NOT consume a slot, no disconnect needed) and the add_connection_url purpose. This goes well beyond the annotations and provides valuable implementation detail without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes no filler. The second sentence adds necessary detail about the reconnect_url's behavior and use cases. While slightly dense, every clause earns its place, and the structure is logical.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It names the return fields, explains the meaning and behavior of the two URLs, and gives concrete conditions for using the reconnect URL. The annotations cover safety, and the description fully covers what a caller needs to know about the response and side effects.

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 the schema coverage is 100% (empty object), so there are no parameter semantics to add. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it appropriately focuses on return values and behavior.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the saved bank connections for this install.' It further lists the exact return fields (connector_id, item_id, bank name, reconnect_url, add_connection_url), distinguishing it from sibling tools that list accounts or transactions. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 explains when to use the reconnect_url: 'use it when a connection needs re-authentication (MFA connectors, LOGIN_ERROR, stale non-Open-Finance data).' It also clarifies that calling the reconnect URL does not consume a slot or require disconnecting first. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools like openfinance_get_item_status or openfinance_force_sync, though the distinct purpose implies the right context.

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