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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context about the return fields (global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, your_banks_affected) and the live nature of the check, going beyond the minimal read-only hint. 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 efficiently structured: it opens with the core purpose, provides a clear use case with examples, and finishes with return values. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the information conveyed.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly lists the return contents: global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, and your_banks_affected. Combined with strong annotations and clear usage guidance, the description fully equips the agent to 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 input schema has no parameters, which makes parameter semantics trivial. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and the baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 checks the LIVE operational status of the Open Finance provider, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `openfinance_get_item_status`, eliminating ambiguity.

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 gives explicit usage conditions: 'Use it whenever data looks incomplete or stale even though a connection shows UPDATED' and explains how to differentiate provider-side problems from connection issues. It also names the alternative tool to use for connection-specific status.

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