Plain-text 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 of explaining behavior. It discloses the output composition (every movement, opening/closing balances, sign-off) and the format (plain text). It does not mention edge cases or side effects, but this is a read/generate operation with no mutation risk, so the transparency is adequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each clause adds necessary detail about scope, ordering, balances, and intended use.

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 purpose, scope, output content, and format despite the absence of an output schema and annotations. It could be more complete by specifying behavior for empty results or multiple currencies, but the schema fills in parameter details and the description gives enough context for an agent to select and 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?

The input schema already documents all seven parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds light context by mentioning 'one client's statement' and 'sign-off', but it does not provide syntax or additional meaning beyond what the schema already gives.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Turn'), a precise resource ('one client's statement'), and a concrete output ('plain-text ledger' with movements in date order, balances, and sign-off). The emphasis on 'plain-text' and 'one client' implicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings like statement_pdf and statements_report, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'ready to paste into an email' provides a clear and practical use context, indicating this tool is for generating a text version of a statement for email communication. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is clear.

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