Export a bank statement as German CSV

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose real traits: the supported source is limited ('currently: SumUp'), the exact encoding conventions (semicolon separator, comma decimals, UTF-8 BOM), the intended use (German Excel, DATEV import basis), and the return values. It omits failure behavior for non-SumUp PDFs; the overwrite behavior is only in the schema, not the description.

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?

One dense but well-formed sentence followed by a short returns clause; the format specifics are front-loaded and nothing is redundant filler. Slightly heavy parenthetical stacking, but every clause 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?

For a two-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description covers the source limitation, the output format, and the return values (row count and path). Gaps are minor: it doesn't restate the output-file overwrite risk or describe how unsupported statement formats fail.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema (absolute PDF path, absolute output path with overwrite note), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds context about what the output file contains but no additional parameter semantics 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Parses a German bank statement PDF ... writes all transactions to a German-style CSV file') and names the concrete output format. It is distinguishable from a pure-parsing tool, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the siblings parse_bank_statement and validate_bank_statement, leaving the routing implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the outcome ('writes ... to a CSV file'): an agent can infer you call this when you want a CSV export. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to the sibling tools that would tell an agent when to prefer parse_bank_statement or validate_bank_statement instead.

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