Check SimpleFIN connection status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'without revealing credentials,' which is important for trust and safety. It also implies a read-only status check, but does not detail response formats or edge cases. Still, it adds meaningful behavioral transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a valuable security note. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Although there is no output schema or annotations, the description adequately conveys the core behavior for a simple status-check tool: it reports configuration status and avoids leaking credentials. It could mention the exact output format or that no external calls are made, but for this low-complexity tool, the description is sufficiently 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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to elaborate on parameter meanings. According to the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline score of 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter info, which 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Report whether an Access URL is configured.' It uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('Access URL') and distinguishes itself from siblings like claim_setup_token and list_accounts by focusing on status rather than setup or data 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to check if an Access URL is configured either via environment variables or a prior claim. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for basic usage.

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