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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating that files are scoped to the caller's token and that sizes are returned. However, it does not describe ordering, pagination, or any return-shape details beyond file sizes.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. The core operation and useful detail, file sizes and token scoping, are front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It states what is listed and that sizes are included. The main omission is return-shape detail such as ordering or pagination, but given the low complexity and full annotation coverage, this is a minor gap.

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 parameter semantics are inherently simple. The schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no undocumented parameters for the description to compensate for. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the statement files stored for your token, with their sizes.' This clearly identifies the tool as a read operation over uploaded statement files. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as bank_upload, bank_delete_upload, or statement_summary, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer bank_files over statement_summary, statement_import, or bank_upload, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. At best, the purpose implies a simple listing use case, but no explicit usage guidance is provided.

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