parse_norma43

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, but the description adds real behavioral detail: it enumerates the validation rules (record 33 counts and totals, opening + movements = closing, record 88 record count, dates, signs, formats), explains that `valid` is false on any error and that issues name their line. It does not say whether truncation by max_movements is surfaced in the result, which is the one behavioral ambiguity left.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then output shape, then validation behavior, then a compact Args block. Dense but every sentence carries information; the only mild redundancy is restating what the output schema already declares about returned fields.

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 parser with a real output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: input encoding options, output granularity control, movement capping, and the meaning of the `valid` flag and per-line issues. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is 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 0%, so the description must carry the burden and it largely does: all four parameters are explained with purpose, defaults (2000, max 20000) and the encoding rationale for the base64 variant. It does not state precedence or mutual exclusivity between content and content_base64 when both are empty, which matters given zero required parameters.

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 ('Read a Spanish Norma 43 ... bank statement into structured JSON') and names the format variants (Cuaderno 43 / AEB43 / CSB43) so the agent knows exactly which input domain it covers. It also implies the boundary against the norma43_to_csv sibling by promising structured JSON output.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance on parameter choice: use content_base64 'for CP850/Latin-1 files with Ñ and accents', and include_movements=False for a totals-only pass. It never explicitly routes the agent away from norma43_to_csv or reconcile_movements, so the sibling selection is left to inference.

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