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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: it returns the global indicator (none/minor/major/critical), degraded components, open incidents, and flags incidents affecting the user's connected banks. It also clarifies the tool reads a public status page, which adds operational context.

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 longer than typical but every sentence adds useful information: the core purpose, the diagnostic trigger, the distinction from connection status, and the return format. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then elaborates. Minor redundancy in the long parenthetical examples could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient for a complex diagnostic tool.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries full responsibility for explaining what the tool does and what it returns. It fully covers the global indicator, degraded components, incidents, and the `your_banks_affected` field. It also provides real-world usage context, making the tool self-contained.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on behavior and output rather than inventing unnecessary parameter explanations. It also explains what the response includes, which is the relevant semantic content.

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 ('Checks') and resource ('LIVE operational status of the Open Finance provider') and immediately distinguishes this from the sibling tool `openfinance_get_item_status`. It clearly identifies the provider's health as separate from the user's own connection status.

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: 'whenever data looks incomplete or stale even though a connection shows UPDATED' and explains that it helps differentiate provider-side problems from connection issues. It names the alternative tool (`openfinance_get_item_status`) and describes the diagnostic benefit.

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