parse_bank_statement_v1_parse_bank_statement_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the transformation and extraction capability, plus the cost of 5 credits per request, which is helpful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid input, or any error behavior. For a non-annotated parse tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 plus a cost line, and every sentence earns its place. The primary action and input format are front-loaded. The cost is a useful extra that is not redundant with any structured field.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core essentials: input format, what it extracts, and cost. It lacks details about the output structure or error handling, but an agent can reasonably infer how to call it and what to expect. Given the simplicity, it is close to complete but could be enhanced with response shape hints.

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 'raw_text', which is clearly documented as 'The raw content of the Norma 43 (N43) bank statement file.' The description adds no new semantic detail beyond that; it merely restates what the schema already conveys. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Transforms'), a specific resource ('Spanish Norma 43 (N43) raw bank statement files'), and an explicit output ('structured JSON'). It also lists extracted data types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling parse tools like parse_xml_flatten or parse_edi_endpoint, which target different formats.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you have raw N43 bank statement text. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but given the niche format and lack of direct sibling competitors, the context is sufficiently clear. A higher score would require explicitly stating 'use this for N43, other parsers for other formats'.

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