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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that each statement carries related entries, contractors and links, but says nothing about volume, paging behavior, or ordering beyond what the schema covers.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the endpoint reference. No filler, though the raw endpoint path is of marginal value to an agent.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what content comes back (statements plus nested entries/contractors/links), and pagination is fully specified in the schema. Sufficient to call correctly, with only ordering/response-shape niceties missing.

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 limit, offset and company_program_id are fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the company scoping ('of one company') and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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+resource ('List the bank statements of one company') and enumerates the included data (entries, contractors, links). The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like saldeo_list_invoices or saldeo_list_documents, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: a required company_program_id signals that this lists statements for a single company. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to an alternative tool for other bank-statement needs.

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