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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the bar is lower, but the description adds substantial context: return fields (connector id, access, audience, accounts), the caveat about non-auto-updating connectors, plan-based visibility (PF/PJ), and the behavior of returning a hint when keywords are omitted. These go well beyond annotations.

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 long but information-dense, starting with the main action and then flowing through return details, caveats, plan rules, and usage timing. It earns its length, though a slightly tighter structure could improve scannability.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must fully explain return values and behavior. It covers all key aspects: match output (id, access, audience, connections, accounts), caveat warnings, plan coverage, and the required keywords behavior. This is complete for a search tool of this complexity.

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 has zero description coverage, but the description fully compensates: it explains keywords with examples ('nubank','btg'), describes include_accounts=true behavior, and explicitly states keywords is required (with a hint fallback). Every parameter gets meaningful semantic clarity.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Searches the available bank connectors by name.' It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools by emphasizing pre-connection search and a ready connect_url, unlike list_connections or get_item_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?

It explicitly states 'Call this BEFORE connecting to hand the user a one-click link to the right bank,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also implies when to prefer Open Finance connectors for automation, though it does not name alternative tools explicitly, so it misses an explicit when-not-to-use.

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