Rate Statement Conversion

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond the annotations: it states that re-calling updates the existing rating without clearing feedback, that the response includes the stored rating state, and that every response contains a 'summary' field to use as the single source of truth. This adds significant context that annotations do not provide, and there is no contradiction.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value—covering update semantics, return behavior, and the summary field. No redundancy or filler; it is efficiently written.

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 has 7 parameters but only 2 required, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: it explains the response contains the stored rating state and a 'summary' field, and clarifies update semantics. This is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly without further lookup.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context about feedback being conditionally accepted and the update behavior, but most parameter details are already in the schema. It does not meaningfully compensate beyond what the schema already explains, so a 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Report how well a previously converted bank statement was parsed' and clarifies it involves submitting a rating. It distinguishes from siblings by noting there is no separate tool to read your rating back, making its role unique among the listed tools.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use it (for rating a conversion) and clarifies that calling again updates the rating, which is useful for repeated submissions. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like evaluate_benchmark, but the description implies the specific scenario (rating a converted statement) sufficiently.

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