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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the reconnect_url (opens widget in UPDATE mode, does not consume a slot) and the add_connection_url, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and provides necessary details. The second sentence is slightly long but well-structured. No wasted words.

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 lack of output schema, the description covers all key aspects: the fields returned and the purpose of the two URLs. It does not mention error conditions or pagination, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient.

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 baseline is 4. The description fully compensates by detailing the return structure (connector_id, item_id, bank name, URLs) and their meanings, which the empty schema cannot convey.

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 returns saved bank connections with specific fields (connector_id, item_id, etc.) and explains the two URLs. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools (e.g., list_accounts), though the resource type is different.

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 guidance on using the reconnect_url for re-authentication cases, but does not give when-to-use or when-not-to-use this tool versus alternatives like other list tools. The context for tool invocation is implied but not explicit.

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