norma43_to_csv

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the description's added value is what it says beyond that: Spanish-Excel output defaults, protection of free-text cells against spreadsheet formula injection, and the fact that integrity issues are returned alongside the CSV. Those are genuine behavioral facts an agent could not get from the annotations or schema.

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 conversion and output shape, followed by the defaults and safety notes. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, with four undocumented input parameters at 0% coverage, the description leaves the content-vs-content_base64 input choice unexplained, which is a real gap for calling the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it only partly does. It implies the delimiter (';' separator) and decimal_comma defaults, but never explains the critical distinction between 'content' and 'content_base64' — an agent has no guidance on which input field to populate.

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 and resource ('Convert a Norma 43 statement to CSV') and even specifies the output grain ('one row per movement, with IBAN, running balance and concept names'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling parse_norma43, so the CSV-vs-parsed-object distinction must be inferred.

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: the tool is for turning a Norma 43 statement into CSV, and the mention of Spanish Excel defaults hints at the intended audience. There is no explicit 'use this when... use parse_norma43 instead when...' routing, which matters given a closely related sibling exists.

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