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

With no annotations, the description still discloses key behavior: only supported fields are extracted, missing fields should be reported, and statement rows must not be created or inferred. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect behavior, but the parsing constraints are meaningfully described.

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 three tight sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage and a clear extraction constraint.

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 one fully described parameter and an output schema, the description provides enough context for correct selection and invocation. It identifies the source text, the target audit step, and the no-inference rule.

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 single text parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the expected pasted statement lines. The description reinforces the mortgage-statement context but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific transformation: turning pasted bank mortgage-statement rows into audit_mortgage_statement inputs. It clearly distinguishes parsing/extraction from the downstream audit and from other sibling calculators.

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 says to use the tool for extracting supported fields from actual mortgage statement text and implies this happens before audit_mortgage_statement. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or list when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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