AI-Process Bank Statement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the API endpoint, camelCase JSON field naming, isAsync=true behavior, async polling via '202 + Location poll', output file name, and nuanced handling of custom_field_keys, custom_field_keys_csv, and profiles. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 dense but not bloated; it front-loads the purpose and then provides necessary technical details. It is a single long paragraph rather than structured bullets, which hurts readability slightly, but every sentence adds valuable information. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 due to the lack of visual structure.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers most critical context: endpoint, file types, API field naming, async behavior, custom field handling, and saved output. The main gap is the missing output_dir parameter, which is relevant for controlling where process_bank_statement.json is saved. Overall, it is fairly complete but not fully exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains most parameters in depth: pdf_file_path accepted formats, doc_name default behavior, bank_name optional omission, custom_field_keys/csv merging and dedup, analyze_patterns default true, and profiles wrapping logic. However, output_dir is entirely omitted from the description, leaving its purpose and usage ambiguous.

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 opens with 'AI-Process Bank Statement (processBankStatement): extract structured data via PDF4me POST /api/v2/ProcessBankStatement', using a specific verb, resource, and endpoint. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling process_* tools by naming bank statements as the target document type.

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 makes the context clear: this tool processes bank statements, which differentiates it from process_invoice, process_receipt, and other sibling document processors. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for other document types, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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