Create Bank Connection

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

The description discloses that the operation returns a job ID for polling, indicating an asynchronous workflow—a behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide. However, it does not elaborate on MFA requirements, side effects, or failure modes. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already cover the basic safety profile, so this extra context raises it slightly, but it remains limited.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds the essential return behavior. No filler or redundant information.

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 4 well-documented parameters, annotations, and the critical return-behavior disclosure (job ID for polling), the description is mostly complete for a simple creation tool. It could mention that polling is done via the sibling 'poll_job' tool or address MFA scenarios, but these are not essential given the context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The description's phrase 'with login credentials' adds no new meaning beyond the schema's username/password fields. There is no additional syntax or format guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('bank connection') with relevant detail ('with login credentials') and return value ('Returns a job ID for polling'). This clearly states the tool's function, but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool 'connect_bank', which may serve a similar purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'connect_bank', nor does it mention prerequisites such as obtaining an 'institutionId' from 'search_institutions'. The usage context is entirely implicit.

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