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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it checks an external provider's status page, not local data, and returns specific fields like global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, and 'your_banks_affected'. No contradictions.

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 moderately long but every sentence contributes value. It front-loads the main action, then provides usage guidance, then lists return fields. It is well-structured and contains no superfluous words. It could be slightly more terse, but the content justifies its length.

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 that the tool has no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining the tool's purpose and output. It fully describes the return fields (global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, your_banks_affected) and provides troubleshooting context. It is entirely sufficient for an agent to understand when and why to use it.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no need for parameter descriptions. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adequately explains what the tool returns, effectively documenting the output in lieu of an output schema. Since schema coverage is 100% (no params), no further parameter info is needed.

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 begins by explicitly stating the tool checks the LIVE operational status of the Open Finance provider's public status page. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'openfinance_get_item_status', which checks the user's own connection. The verb 'checks' and the resource 'provider status' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'whenever data looks incomplete or stale even though a connection shows UPDATED'. It gives concrete scenarios (accounts/transactions/balances missing) and explains what it reveals (upstream outage, known incident). It also contrasts with the sibling tool, making the usage context extremely clear.

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