search_statements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key safety trait ("Read-only"), which is valuable, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or return shape despite page/pageSize parameters.

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 resource and purpose, with zero filler. Slightly terse relative to the tool's 10-parameter surface, but efficient.

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?

Adequate but thin for a 10-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations: the description does not indicate what a statement record contains or what the filtered result set looks like. The fully-described schema compensates partially, keeping this at a minimum-viable 3.

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 all 10 parameters are already documented in the schema (dates, customerId, statementType, deliveryStatus, sorting, paging). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource ("Search customer statements") and, importantly, disambiguates the resource with "periodic AR statements sent to customers," distinguishing it from bank statements. It does not name or differentiate against the sibling get_statement, 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to use this for browsing/filtering multiple statements versus get_statement for a single known statement, or how it relates to send_statement/delete_statement. "Read-only" is a safety trait, not usage direction, so no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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