Plain-text statement of account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the output format, ordering of movements, included balances, deposit-held note, sign-off, and monthly quota consumption. However, it does not state whether the operation has side effects on data, what permissions are needed, or how ambiguous client matches are handled.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The core transformation is front-loaded, followed by the quota warning and the key sibling alternative. Every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains what the returned text will contain and that the result is intended for email. It also covers the quota and differentiates from statement_pdf. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not orient the agent among other statement-related siblings, but the main use case is clear.

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 and the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only indirect references to sign-off and date-ordered movements, not meaningful extra parameter-level semantics.

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 and resource: it turns one client's statement into a plain-text letter for email, with clear contents (movements, balances, deposit held, sign-off). It also distinguishes itself from statement_pdf by explicitly saying that tool writes the A4 page.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: plain-text email output versus statement_pdf's A4 page. It also warns that the tool counts toward a monthly quota of 5, which is a useful usage constraint. It does not explicitly cover when to prefer statement_build, statement_aging, or dunning_text.

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