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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important side effects: bank statements are imported into a bank account that may be auto-created, and receipts or bills are read and matched. It also says the result reports what was found and what happened, giving the agent useful behavioral context for a write operation.

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 front-loaded with the main action and is generally efficient. It includes some repetition of document types when explaining behavior, but every part remains useful 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?

For a non-idempotent write tool with a nested file object and no output schema, the description gives sufficient context about input expectations, side effects, and result shape. Minor gaps around duplicate handling or error behavior remain, but the core details an agent needs are present.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds context about supported file types but does not add meaningful guidance beyond the schema for the company parameter or file object fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a file ... to their AccountsOS books,' and clarifies the document types handled. This clearly separates it from read/search siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with an alternative tool.

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?

It provides a clear usage condition: 'Use it whenever the user attaches or mentions a financial document and wants it in their books.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as search_documents, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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