Справки банка

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only content-domain context ('statements ordered at the bank') and does not disclose any additional behaviors such as whether the list is filtered, paged, or limited to certain document types.

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 one short sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical examples (fund-flow statements, income statements) add useful concreteness. It earns its place but is minimal; it could be better by also naming the action the tool performs.

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 zero-param, read-only tool with an output schema, this minimal description is borderline acceptable. However, bank_documents is placed among many siblings, and without a clear action or relation to documents, payment_receipt, or flows, the agent is left to infer too much about what invoking this tool actually returns.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics the description needs to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description does not hurt this dimension.

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 says what the resource is — bank-issued statements, including those about fund flows and income — so the domain is identifiable. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb (e.g., 'list', 'get', 'download'), which leaves the tool's actual action and return value implicit rather than explicit.

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?

No usage conditions or alternatives are mentioned. The description does not distinguish when to use bank_documents instead of sibling tools like documents or payment_receipt, nor does it mention any exclusions or contexts where a different tool would be better.

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