Bank Statement to CSV (Tanod)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with all of them. Beyond that, it discloses row reconciliation against the running balance, supported formats and layouts, scanned-PDF failure behavior, OFX/QIF year requirements, page and payload limits, pricing, logging/retention behavior, runtime expectations and prompt-injection caution.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose and sibling alternative come first, then outputs, formats, constraints and pricing. Every sentence carries operational information, and the length is justified by the tool's many behavioral constraints.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need full explanation, but the description still names the key returned fields and reconciliation behavior. For a complex PDF-to-transactions tool with limits, pricing, retention and security concerns, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 already 100%, so the schema does the heavy lifting for url, pages, format, output and file_base64. The description adds some useful context such as output=url retention and OFX/QIF date behavior, but it mostly restates constraints already present in the schema and does not add substantial new semantics for most parameters.

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: turn a PDF bank statement into dated transactions for bookkeeping or import. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling extract_pdf_tables for other table types, so an agent can choose correctly without opening either 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 an explicit use condition (bookkeeping or import) and a direct alternative for other tables: extract_pdf_tables. It also states the prerequisite for scanned statements, namely that a 422 no_text_layer means OCR should be run first, which is exactly the kind of when-not guidance an agent needs.

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