Build a statement of account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that output is in minor units and formatted and lists statement contents, but it does not disclose the return format, whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, authentication needs, or response shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the verb, scope, period, and contents are all conveyed efficiently. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must cover behavior and return value, but it only hints at formatting with 'minor units and formatted.' The relationship to statement_text/statement_pdf and the exact output structure are missing, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's result.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains from, to, client, and currency. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond implying the period and client are used.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and identifies the resource as one client's statement of account for a period, enumerating the included components (opening balance, invoices, payments, credit notes, deposits, closing balance). It is clear and not tautological, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as statement_text or statement_pdf.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over the sibling statement tools. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the tool name and sibling names.

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