parse_bank_statement

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses cost ($0.03 per document via x402 USDC on Base), file size limit (20MB), default language (ita+eng), and auto-categorization option. It does not detail error behavior or idempotency, but these are less critical for a read-only parse tool.

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, starting with the purpose, then return type, followed by a bullet list of arguments with defaults. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return structure, constraints (file size, cost, defaults). It lacks error handling or format details but is sufficient for a straightforward parse 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%, so description compensates well. For file_url it adds max file size; for language it explains OCR usage and default; for categorize_transactions it explains auto-categorization and default. This adds meaningful context beyond schema titles and types.

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 clearly states it extracts structured data from a bank statement PDF, listing specific return fields (transactions, balances, account holder info, fees). It distinguishes from sibling tools like parse_contract, parse_generic_document, parse_invoice, and supported_document_types by focusing solely on bank statements.

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 for bank statement PDFs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., parse_invoice for invoices). No 'when not to use' or explicit context is provided, though sibling names help differentiate.

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