Parse a German bank statement PDF

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing the 500-transaction truncation limit, the fact that parsed sums are proof-checked against the statement's own header totals, and the concrete shape of the return payload. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the return contents, then the truncation caveat and alternative. The trailing promotional URL for kontozack.de is the one sentence that does not earn its place for tool selection.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so fully: header data (IBAN, period, balances), transaction count, validation checks, and the transactions themselves with a truncation caveat. Nothing needed to call or interpret the tool is missing.

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% for the single parameter, and the schema already documents it as an absolute path to the PDF. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb (parses) and resource (German bank statement PDF) with an explicit current scope limitation (SumUp account statements). An agent immediately knows what it produces: structured transactions plus header data.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to export_bank_statement_csv when the 500-transaction truncation is hit, which is a concrete when-to-use signal. It does not, however, differentiate itself from validate_bank_statement, leaving one sibling relationship unexplained.

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