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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that the operation is a read-only listing and explicitly scopes results to the current token, while also disclosing the included attribute (sizes). This is good transparency for a simple zero-parameter list tool, though it does not mention ordering, limits, or exact response structure.

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, tightly worded sentence that states the action, resource, scope, and output detail without any filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool without an output schema, the description gives the essential context: what is listed, for whom, and what information is included. It does not describe additional return fields or formatting, but the absence of parameters and the simple nature of the operation make this gap minor.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description correctly focuses on the behavior and scope rather than inventing parameter details.

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 a specific action (List), the resource (statement files), and the scope (stored for your token), plus what information is returned (sizes). This distinguishes it from siblings like bank_upload and bank_delete_upload, which perform different actions on the same resource.

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 implies the tool is used to see which statement files exist for the current token, which is useful before uploading or deleting. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives such as statement_import or statement_summary, leaving some inference to the agent.

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