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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: returns user-linked connections, hides PJ banks on PF plans, treats PJ plans as covering both, returns a hint if keywords are missing (never dumps the catalog), and surfaces caveat warnings for non-Open-Finance connectors.

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 dense with useful detail but somewhat long for two parameters. Every sentence carries information, but the flow could be tighter. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 sparse schema and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers return values, edge cases (missing keywords, non-Open-Finance caveats), plan logic, and the intended workflow placement. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema provides only property names with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining keywords[] with an example and its requirement, and include_accounts for including accounts. It also notes the behavior when keywords are omitted.

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 the available bank connectors by name' and lists the specific return fields (connector id, access, audience, links, connect_url). It is easily distinguished from siblings like 'connect' or 'marketplace' by focusing on search and pre-connect discovery.

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 this BEFORE connecting' to obtain a one-click link, and advises preferring Open Finance connectors for automation by surfacing caveats. It also clarifies plan-based visibility, giving the agent clear context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'connect'.

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