list_connections

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral nuance: expired/needs_reconnect connections require re-consent elsewhere and that this server cannot restore consent. This exceeds a bare 'list' complete with an important limitation, though it doesn't cover all potential behaviors (e.g., pagination, filtering).

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?

Two sentences, both essential. The first defines the resource and content, the second adds critical status-related caveat. No redundancy or filler.

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 a simple no-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context: purpose, key fields, and an important behavioral constraint. It might mention pagination or ordering, but these are likely in the output schema, so the description is complete enough.

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 default baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the fields returned even though no parameters exist, making the tool's behavior clear without parameter explanations.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('List the user's bank connections (consents)') and enumerates the data returned (status, validity, last sync). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools focused on accounts, balances, and transactions.

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 via the domain (connections vs. accounts) and explains the implication of expired status, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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