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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotent annotations, it discloses the non-obvious two-step behavior: the tool only returns links and the actual connection occurs out-of-band when the user signs in to their bank in a browser. The explicit 'nothing is connected or changed by calling it' removes the main ambiguity an agent would have about a tool named 'connect_bank'.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the capability before the behavioral caveat. The final clause slightly restates the preceding sentence ('only returns links' vs 'nothing is connected or changed'), a small redundancy but not enough to obscure the message.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return semantics (links) and the follow-up action (user opens link at bankbridge.money). An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to instruct the user correctly afterward.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly avoids inventing any. Nothing about the call signature is left unclear.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns a link for connecting a new bank account plus reconnect links for banks needing re-authorization or expiring within 30 days. This clearly distinguishes it from the read-only siblings (list_accounts, get_account, search_transactions), none of which produce connection links.

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?

Gives concrete conditions for use: a new bank connection, a bank needing re-authorization, or consent expiring within 30 days. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions, but no sibling offers overlapping functionality, so the routing is unambiguous in practice.

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