import_bank_extract_pdf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing filtering, idempotency, and persistence to the cash_flows table. It does not mention potential side effects like file validation errors or partial imports, but the core behaviors are transparent.

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?

The description is concise and structured in short, information-dense sentences. Every sentence adds value—import source, filtering criteria, idempotency, and persistence—without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's single parameter and lack of output schema, the description covers essential context: source, filter behavior, idempotency, and destination table. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning what happens on duplicate files or invalid PDFs, but the provided context is strong.

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?

The single parameter file_path has 100% schema description coverage and the description repeats the essential detail that it is an absolute path to an XP PDF. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the input schema, so baseline is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool imports PDFs from XP's Conta Digital Extrato and specifies the exact filtering logic (transfers between digital and investment accounts, APORTE/RESGATE). It also clarifies idempotency and persistence, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and its idempotent behavior, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling import tools like import_xperformance_pdf or import_extract_csv. There is no direct guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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