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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that reconnect_url reopens the widget in UPDATE mode, refreshes data in place, and does not consume a connection slot. This goes beyond the annotations and provides operational details without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the primary purpose. The second sentence is dense but delivers necessary details about reconnect_url and its constraints. It is efficient, though the second sentence could be slightly overwhelming; overall, every phrase earns its place.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by listing returned fields and explaining the behavior of both URLs. It covers the main use case and constraints, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly. It could mention if the response is a list, but 'connections' plural implies that.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output fields rather than inputs. It does not need to clarify parameters because none exist.

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's function with 'Returns the saved bank connections for this install' and enumerates the specific fields returned (connector_id, item_id, bank name, reconnect_url, add_connection_url). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like openfinance_disconnect_bank or openfinance_force_sync, which have different purposes.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for the reconnect_url: 'use it when a connection needs re-authentication (MFA connectors, LOGIN_ERROR, stale non-Open-Finance data).' It also clarifies that reconnecting 'does NOT consume a connection slot and does NOT require disconnecting first,' which prevents misuse. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, so it's not a full 5.

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