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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It explains the return structure including a reconnect_url feature and bulk execution support, which are not implied by annotations alone.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with clear front-loading of the core purpose and structured breakdown of usage modes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return fields, two call patterns, and bulk support. It lacks error handling or rate limit information but is largely complete for a read-only status query tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the usage of 'item' (omit for all, pass for single) and 'item_ids' (bulk). However, it does not explicitly describe the 'item_id' parameter, which may cause confusion about its difference from 'item'. Overall, it adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 it returns the current status of a bank connection, listing specific output fields (status, executionStatus, connector metadata, reconnect_url) and distinguishes between single and bulk queries. It differentiates from sibling tools by describing its unique behavior of omitting 'item' to get all linked banks and supporting bulk via 'item_ids'.

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 provides clear usage context: omit 'item' for all linked banks, pass 'item' for a single bank, and use 'item_ids' for bulk execution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools among siblings for other operations like syncing or disconnecting.

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