Statement List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the behavioral safety profile. The description adds the cross-tool link to 'statement_export' and the notion of statement types, but does not significantly expand on behavior beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise at two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence provides a crucial usage hint. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and connects to a sibling tool, which is important context. It does not detail the output format, but an output schema exists (not shown here but mentioned in context signals). Minor omission: it does not explicitly mention that the returned statements have an 'id' field for export, though it is implied. Overall, sufficient for a simple read-only listing tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters clearly described in the schema (limit, start_date, statement_type). The description only restates the statement_type values ('daily' and 'monthly') without adding new meaning or formatting details. Therefore, it provides no additional value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'List available account statements (daily/monthly)' with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('account statements'). It also distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling 'statement_export' by noting that the id obtained here can be used for download, thus differentiating their purposes.

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 gives a clear follow-up action ('Use the id with statement_export to download'), implying that listing is a precursor to downloading. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other similar listing tools, nor does it mention when not to use it or provide other alternatives. The guidance is implicit and minimal.

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