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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: reconnect_url reopens the widget in UPDATE mode without disconnecting or consuming a connection slot, and omitted `item` returns a `{ count, items }` envelope. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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 appropriately concise: two dense sentences with front-loaded purpose, plus a short bulk-support note. Every sentence adds information and there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotations.

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 there is no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the description does a good job of covering return values, single vs. all behavior, bulk semantics, and the reconnect_url implication. It loses a point for not addressing `item_id` and for lacking explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `item` and `item_ids` well, but the `item_id` parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters ambiguous. This is a real gap in an otherwise helpful description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the current status of a bank connection' and lists concrete return contents (status, executionStatus, connector metadata, reconnect_url). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_connections by emphasizing the reconnect_url and update-mode behavior.

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 provides clear usage context: omitting `item` retrieves all banks, passing `item` retrieves one, and `item_ids` is available for batch execution. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient and practical.

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