get_connection_status

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: per-institution sync health, timestamps, login requirements, error states, decode_health semantics, scheduled_smoke behavior, and the meaning of fail vs auth-missing/incomplete.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then adds return-value semantics, which are important because there is no output schema. It is dense but every sentence contributes; it could be slightly more structured, but it is not padded.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnly annotation, the description carries the return-value burden well. It explains the main status payload and the auxiliary decode_health and scheduled_smoke fields, including status interpretation.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly does not invent parameter details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get connection status for linked financial institutions. It then scopes the response to sync health, login requirements, error states, decode_health, and scheduled_smoke, making the tool clearly distinct from the data-retrieval siblings.

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?

It explicitly says to use this to check when accounts were last synced or to identify connections needing attention. That gives clear positive usage context, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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