Consent status

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

With annotations already covering read-only/idempotent safety, the description adds substantial domain context: the 180-day consent ceiling, the four possible state values, and a privacy constraint ('Show the result only to the account owner'). None of that is recoverable from the structured fields.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with purpose before the exclusions and the privacy note. The line-broken fragment style is slightly choppy, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, yet the description still enumerates the state values an agent must branch on. Combined with the scope limits and privacy rule, nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both `remote` and `warn_days` are fully documented in the schema. The description nods at the warning concept but adds no format, unit, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+return: 'Read-only consent expiry: valid until, days left, and a warning.' It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_balances or get_transactions, which deal with money rather than consent state.

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?

Explicitly bounds usage: 'This does not renew the consent and cannot move money. Renew with `n26-eb connect`.' It names the alternative tool for the adjacent task an agent might confuse this with, which is exactly the routing guidance needed.

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