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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the caveat about non-Open-Finance connectors requiring manual reconnection, the plan-based visibility of PF/PJ banks, and the behavior of returning a hint instead of the whole catalog when keywords are omitted. These are valuable behavioral insights not present in the 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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, return values, caveats, plan behavior, and usage timing, all in a compact, front-loaded structure. No fluff or repetition.

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 enumerates the return fields and includes critical context about caveats and plan restrictions. It is complete for a search tool with clear input requirements and behavioral nuances.

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 zero description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that keywords[] is required, gives an example (['nubank','btg']), and clarifies that include_accounts=true adds accounts to the response. This fully compensates for the schema's silence.

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 opens with 'Searches the available bank connectors by name', clearly stating the verb and resource. It then enumerates the returned fields (connector id, access, audience, connections, connect_url), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on listing connections or transactions.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this BEFORE connecting to hand the user a one-click link to the right bank', providing clear timing/context. It also explains plan-based behavior, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, falling just short of a 5.

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