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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds critical context: caveat warnings for non-Open-Finance connectors (manual reconnection needed), and plan-based visibility (PF hides PJ banks, PJ covers both). No contradictions.

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?

Description is comprehensive but not overly verbose. It front-loads the main action and each sentence adds distinct information. Could be slightly tightened, but well-organized.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully details return fields (connector id, access, audience, linked connections, connect_url) and behavior (plan handling, caveats). Complete for a search tool with 2 parameters.

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 no property descriptions (0% coverage). Description compensates by explaining keywords[] with examples and stating it's required, and clarifies include_accounts behavior (includes accounts when true). Adds value beyond schema structure.

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 it 'Searches the available bank connectors by name' and lists specific return fields (connector id, access, audience, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like connect or list_connections.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Call this BEFORE connecting to hand the user a one-click link to the right bank.' It also explains that keywords[] is required and returns a hint otherwise, and describes plan behavior. Could mention when not to use versus siblings, but overall strong.

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