bank_test_connection

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful context with 'The access token is never returned,' disclosing a security-relevant behavior that is not fully captured by the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, and it offers a helpful guarantee about output behavior.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose and then add a key behavioral note. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema/annotation 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 no output schema, the description has the burden of explaining what the tool returns or how results are presented. It clearly states what is not returned (the token) but does not describe what is returned on success or failure. For a test tool, specifying outcome semantics (e.g., boolean, status message, exception behavior) would make it more complete.

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 input schema has no parameters (100% schema coverage with an empty properties object). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and there is no parameter information needed from the description. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than nonexistent inputs.

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's purpose: 'Test Garanti OAuth client_credentials authentication.' The verb 'Test' plus the specific resource ('Garanti OAuth client_credentials authentication') distinguishes this from sibling data tools like bank_list_accounts, bank_get_balances, and bank_list_transactions. The added note about the access token never being returned further clarifies that this is a pure authentication check, not a credential retrieval.

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 implies usage—this tool should be used to verify OAuth authentication—but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. With sibling tools like bank_provider_status, more explicit guidance on when to choose this test over a provider status check would be beneficial.

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