link_testing_accounts

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

The description implies the tool creates a link (mutation) and mentions return behavior (8 accounts, no MFA), but does not explicitly state that it is destructive or what side effects occur. With no annotations, it partially meets transparency needs.

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 with no wasted words. Purpose is stated first, followed by key details. Economical and well-structured.

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?

The description covers purpose, sandbox restriction, default behavior, and result characteristics. With an output schema present, it is mostly complete, though it could clarify that customer_id must exist.

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 description adds context for the username, password, and institution_id defaults (demo/go, 101732) but does not explain the required customer_id or other parameters. Given 0% schema coverage, it provides some value but not full compensation.

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 links FinBank test accounts to a testing customer without hosted Connect, specifying it is sandbox-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_access_token or generate_connect_url.

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: sandbox only, defaults to a specific institution, and returns 8 accounts without MFA. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or 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.