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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by detailing the return content: global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, and flags incidents affecting your banks. Discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations, though lacks info on rate limits or auth needs.

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?

Description is a single paragraph but is well-structured with logical flow: what it does, when to use, what it returns. Could be slightly more concise or broken into shorter sentences, but remains clear and informative.

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 no output schema, description fully explains the return value (global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, your_banks_affected). For a tool with zero parameters and a clear use case, this provides complete context for an AI agent to select and invoke it 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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Description adds no parameter info because none exist. Per guidelines, 0 params = baseline 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?

Clearly states it checks the live operational status of the Open Finance provider, using specific verb 'checks' and resource 'provider status'. Distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'openfinance_get_item_status' by noting it is provider health, separate from your connection.

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 explains when to use: when data looks incomplete/stale even though connection shows updated, accounts/transactions missing, bank not returning everything. Also describes what it reveals (upstream outage, specific incidents) and how it helps differentiate provider-side problems from connection issues.

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