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

The description discloses what the tool returns: global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, and your_banks_affected. It adds context not in annotations, such as the live nature and the separation from connection status. Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the description goes beyond them, though it omits potential rate limits or external dependencies.

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 moderately detailed but each sentence adds value: purpose, usage trigger, and return details. It is front-loaded with the core function and structured logically. It could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning, but it is not unnecessarily verbose.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It also distinguishes from a sibling tool and explains the 'your_banks_affected' field, making it highly complete for the context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description clarifies the tool's scope and output without needing parameter explanations, which aligns with the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 'Checks the LIVE operational status of the Open Finance provider', using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes this from openfinance_get_item_status by contrasting provider health with connection status, which differentiates it from a directly relevant sibling.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it whenever data looks incomplete or stale even though a connection shows UPDATED'. It also provides an alternative by mentioning openfinance_get_item_status and explains how to differentiate provider-side problems from connection issues, offering a clear decision framework.

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