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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the operational safety profile is covered. The description's 'Read-only' merely repeats the annotation, but 'with its lines and their matches' adds useful context about what the response contains. No additional behavioral details such as error conditions, company scoping, or output shape are disclosed.

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 extremely compact: two short sentences, front-loaded with the core meaning and ending with the read-only qualifier. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler or restating of the schema.

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 read-only retrieval tool with two required UUID parameters, an output schema, and robust annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It states the single-statement scope and what is included (lines and matches). The only missing contextual element is explicit routing to list-oriented siblings, but that is more of a usage-guidance refinement than a completeness gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter information. Both parameters are documented only as 'UUID value wrapper,' which is formal but not semantically rich; parameter names statementId and companyId carry the actual meaning. The description neither compensates for nor worsens this situation.

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 identifies the resource as a single statement and specifies that it includes lines and their matches, which distinguishes it from listing tools like accounting_get_list_statements. The verb is only implicit through the title 'Get Statement,' but the scope and content are unambiguous. It could be stronger by explicitly contrasting with sibling getters, so it does not quite reach a 5.

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 word 'One' implies this tool is for retrieving a specific statement rather than listing statements, giving minimal usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over accounting_get_list_statements or other statement-related tools. Usage guidance is present only by implication, not by explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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