bank_link_finish

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this call creates a persistent bank connection, what state validation does or whether a mismatched state is rejected, whether the call is idempotent, or what errors surface on an expired/invalid code — all the behavior an agent needs for an OAuth-callback step.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with an action verb and no filler; the parameter explanation is attached directly to the imperative. It is efficient but leans toward under-specification rather than tightness, leaving no room for the flow context the agent actually needs.

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 an OAuth-callback tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the flow context (that it finalizes a bank_link_start session), which parameter form is preferred, what a successful result yields, and how to recover from an invalid code or state. Given the complete absence of structured behavioral data, this is a significant gap.

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 0%, so the schema alone leaves both parameters opaque strings. The description compensates by explaining that redirect_url is the full return URL containing ?code=...&state=... and that alternatively the bare code may be passed — real semantic value the schema does not provide, though it stops short of naming the state field's role or marking either parameter required.

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?

"Completa il collegamento" states a completion action on a linking flow, and the parameter hints (?code / state) identify it as an OAuth-style callback. However, the object of "collegamento" is never named as a bank account link, so the purpose is only inferable by combining the name with the sibling bank_link_start rather than from the text itself.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no mention that it must follow bank_link_start, and no note on prerequisite authorization. The only guidance is a weak either/or between the two parameters ("oppure"), with no rule for choosing between them and no indication of what to do on failure.

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