get_statement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It establishes that the tool reads and filters transactions, but it omits pagination behavior despite a 'page' parameter existing, and says nothing about default scope when no filters are supplied or how results are ordered. For a financial listing tool, these are material behavioral gaps.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence efficiently summarizes filter capabilities. Every word earns its place.

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?

The schema fully documents parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves gaps around pagination, unfiltered behavior, and how this tool differs from sibling list_sales — gaps an agent would need to resolve at runtime.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented with descriptions and examples (e.g., 'Sale', 'themeforest.net', 'YYYY-MM-DD'). The description conceptually maps 'date range, transaction type, and site' to the relevant parameters but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('transactions from your Envato statement'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'list_sales', which plausibly overlaps in function, leaving an agent uncertain which to choose without inspecting both schemas.

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 implies usage context by naming the supported filters (date range, transaction type, site), so an agent can infer this is the tool for filtered statement lookups. But it provides no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives like list_sales or get_earnings for overlapping financial queries.

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