Export Statement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a pre-signed URL that must be fetched separately to get the JSON data. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the two-step process and the nature of the response.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose, then adding the return structure and follow-up action. Every sentence is meaningful and concise with no redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of comprehensive annotations (safety, idempotency), a well-described parameter in the schema, and an output schema (confirmed in context signals), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, data source, response format, and next step, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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, with a clear example value. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate. The description does mention the return format {url}, which indirectly relates, but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get a pre-signed download URL for a statement data file'. It specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'pre-signed download URL', and references the source tool (statement_list), making it distinct from siblings.

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 explicitly says the file_key is 'obtained from statement_list', providing clear context for when to use this tool (after statement_list). It strongly implies this is a follow-up step, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The sibling list includes statement_list, further clarifying the workflow.

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