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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers exceptionally detailed behavioral context: there is no filesystem, uploads are kept per token between calls, URL fetching has timeout/redirect/host/size limits, PDF statements are refused rather than stored, and the request body cap is 256 KB. This goes far beyond what the schema alone would tell an agent.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core purpose, then explains parameter selection, URL-fetch behavior, limits, and cleanup tools in a logical order. No filler or redundant restating of the tool name or title.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: an agent knows what to send, how to choose the input format, what limits apply, and how the uploaded file is later referenced. The only minor gap is that the success/return value of the upload itself is not described, though the lifecycle mentions bank_files for listing uploads.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it explains that content is the normal case for CSV, content_base64 preserves UTF-16 Excel files, and url is recommended above 10 KB. It also explains practical interactions such as the 1 MB fetch cap and the need to split large text exports, which the schema does not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a bank export to this hosted endpoint.' It clearly distinguishes itself from statement_import by explaining that bank_upload stores the file once and passes its name as `path` to statement_import, and it is also separated from bank_files and bank_delete_upload by describing their roles in the upload lifecycle.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Give exactly one of content, content_base64 or url', plus concrete selection criteria such as using content_base64 for UTF-16 Excel exports, using url above about 10 KB, and splitting large pasted exports because of the 256 KB body cap. It also names related tools for managing uploads, so an agent knows the surrounding workflow.

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