bank_parse_statement

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with 'Legge', so no contradiction. The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations by naming accepted input formats and summarizing the returned figures, but it does not explain what happens when the bank is not recognized or that the mapping override is then required, which is the main failure mode this tool has.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the format list is compactly parenthesized. It is appropriately sized, though it could have used one more clause for the unrecognized-bank path instead of stopping at the output summary.

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?

With no output schema and a nested-object parameter, the description carries extra burden. It does sketch the return values (bank, period, in/out), but leaves the unknown-bank/mapping fallback and error behavior unexplained, which matters for a parser that can fail on unrecognized layouts.

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 67%, so the schema already documents bank ('Forza il formato... vedi bank_formats'), mapping, and its nested fields. The description adds no parameter-level detail itself; the phrase 'banca riconosciuta' only weakly implies the auto-detection that the bank parameter overrides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Legge un estratto conto') and adds scope details: accepted formats (XLSX, XLS, CSV) and what it reports (recognized bank, period, income/expenses). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related bank_formats, bank_reconcile, or client_statement siblings, 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the bank_* alternatives (bank_formats for discovering formats, bank_reconcile for matching, bank_list_banks). Usage must be inferred from the mention of home-banking export files. It also omits prerequisites such as whether file_path must point to a local file already uploaded.

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