Get Pro-Futuro pension detail

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure itself. It does disclose the conditional statement behavior and enumerates statement components, but it does not describe response structure, edge cases, or what happens when only one of month/year is provided. Nothing contradicts the annotations because there are none.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary result, then adds the conditional statement clause and its components. Every clause contributes information, and there is no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

Without an output schema, the description reasonably explains the return content at a high level. However, it leaves ambiguity around partial month/year inputs and does not describe the response shape or behavior when only one of the two optional parameters is supplied.

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 schema already documents portalId as coming from bg_list_accounts and month/year as statement selectors; the description reinforces the conditionality but adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the specific resource (Pro-Futuro pension product) and the two kinds of data returned: balances/fund breakdown and an optional monthly statement. It is specific enough to set the tool apart from generic account tools like bg_get_account, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 gives a clear conditional usage rule: the monthly statement is included only when month and year are given. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over bg_get_account, bg_list_accounts, or other siblings, and it offers no exclusion criteria.

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