Statement parsing

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent; the description adds concrete behavioral value by disclosing that the call costs wallet credits. It also summarizes the output shape, though it does not cover failure modes or malformed input behavior.

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 definition is compact, front-loads the transformation result, and includes the wallet-credit cost without wasted words. The grammatical fragment in the first sentence is a minor structural flaw but the overall length is appropriate.

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 does a reasonable job of sketching what the tool returns, but it omits operational details such as requiring one of text, fileUrl, or fileBase64. For a tool with four optional-looking parameters, an agent needs more guidance to invoke it successfully on the first try.

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?

All four parameters already have full descriptions in the schema, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description adds no per-parameter guidance or preferred-input rules, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 title and description together identify a statement-parsing tool with a concrete deliverable: account, period, balances, and per-transaction normalized rows. The description's first sentence lacks an explicit main verb ('A bank or card statement into…'), relying on the title to supply the action, but it is still clear enough to distinguish from sibling parserail_* tools.

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 the tool handles bank or card statements but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over siblings like parserail_invoice, parserail_receipt, or parserail_extract. It also doesn't state that at least one input source must be provided despite all parameters being marked optional in the schema.

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