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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: cost of 1 api_sat per call, verification via 'debit_or_deny', and the output being a dark-themed SVG with specific components. It does not cover failure cases or side effects, but overall adds substantial transparency.

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 concise at four sentences, front-loading the core action. Every sentence adds value, though some internal structure like bullet points could improve readability. No superfluous content.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It adequately lists the graphic components (balance hero, metrics cards, etc.) and includes cost and verification context. No obvious gaps for a generative tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema; for example, it restates the days parameter default but does not elucidate format or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 states it generates a visual SVG infographic of an account statement, distinguishing it from the sibling 'cypher_account_statement' which returns data in a different format. The verb 'generate' and noun phrase 'visual SVG infographic' provide a specific resource and action.

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 description mentions cost and verification but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cypher_account_statement'. It implies use when a visual graphic is desired, but lacks explicit when-not or exclusion criteria.

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