load_statement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only says the tool returns a period and totals; it omits whether the load is idempotent, whether it overwrites previously loaded data, what permissions or file-access constraints apply, and how malformed CSVs are handled.

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 action and the accepted formats, with the return value last. Nothing is redundant, though the phrasing is terse to the point of under-specification.

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 one-parameter ingestion tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, accepted input shape, and a rough return summary. It still leaves the path semantics and the effect of loading on existing data unexplained, which matters for a mutation-style tool.

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% for the single required parameter 'path', which has no title or description beyond 'Path'. The description clarifies the file's expected content/columns but never explains whether 'path' is a local filesystem path, an absolute vs relative path, or something else — the one thing an agent must get right.

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+resource ('Загрузить выписку') and narrows the accepted input to a T-Bank CSV or a CSV with date/amount/description columns. That is enough to distinguish it from the sibling analytics tools (spending_by_category, forecast_month, etc.), which all operate on already-loaded data.

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 accepted file formats imply the tool is the data-ingestion entry point, but the description never says when to call it versus the siblings, whether it must be called before the analysis tools, or what happens if it is called repeatedly. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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