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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the reconciliation logic (missing months, overlapping periods, duplicates kept once, non-carrying balances), the return payload (accounts, problems, counts, file links), the one-hour validity of the combined file, and that the user's DocFig API key is used. Annotations only say non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world; the description supplies the operational detail an agent 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?

A single dense sentence, but front-loaded with the action and packed with useful clauses rather than filler. The parentheticals (gaps, kept once, valid one hour) are information-bearing, though splitting the return-value clause into its own sentence would improve scanability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's summary of the return payload and file expiry is essential and present; annotations cover the safety profile. The one notable gap is that zero parameters are required and the description never says at least one of files or statement_ids must be supplied, leaving an agent able to construct an empty call.

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 the schema already documents file_url vs file_base64, passwords, wait_seconds and statement_ids. The description adds only the one-hour reuse window for statement_ids, which the schema states anyway, and omits the 12-file cap and 20 MB limits. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the weight.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Convert several statements ... and combine them into one set of accounts') plus the concrete processing it performs: gap detection, overlap handling, dedupe, balance carry-over. The plural 'several' and the reference to statement_ids from convert_statement distinguish it from the single-statement sibling without the agent needing the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for the two entry paths: fresh files, or reuse of statement_ids from convert_statement or a prior combine_statements call within the last hour. It does not explicitly state when to prefer convert_statement alone or check_transactions instead, so no exclusions are offered.

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