Parse Form 26AS (text export)

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial extra context: TCS rows are split out into tcsEntries, creditableTdsDeposited counts only status F rows while the raw total is reported separately, and the DOB-password/PDF-unsupported constraints. That is exactly the kind of non-schema behavior an agent needs.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: the first defines the transformation and output shape, the second flags the creditable-vs-raw distinction, the third states how to obtain a valid input. Nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still describes the return structure (TDS entries with deductor/TAN/section/amounts/status, totals, separate tcsEntries, creditableTdsDeposited). Combined with the single fully-described parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage as an absolute path to a .txt file. The description adds the qualifying constraint that it must be the TRACES Text export, not a PDF, which meaningfully narrows the accepted input beyond the schema.

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 (Parse) and a precise resource (caret-delimited Form 26AS TEXT export from TRACES) and enumerates the extracted fields, so it is immediately distinguishable from parse_ais and reconcile_documents.

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 concrete preconditions: download the 'Text' format from TRACES, the archive password is your DOB as DDMMYYYY, and PDF exports are explicitly unsupported. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g. parse_ais) or say when another tool would be preferred, so it falls short of a 5.

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