Unlock Statement Pdf

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

The description transparently discloses the password-derivation logic ('common Indian bank formats') and the optional parameters that affect behavior. It also mentions the output structure, which is valuable for a tool with no annotations. It could be more explicit about side effects or failure modes, but it covers the key behavior well.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, then details usage options and the next step. It is efficiently structured, though it could be slightly tightened without losing the useful context.

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 tool with 6 parameters and a complex password-derivation workflow, the description covers the necessary usage guidance and output structure. It doesn't explain every edge case, but it provides sufficient context for an agent to call it correctly, especially given the existing output schema.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains how the parameters relate to password derivation (name + dob + optional card_last4) and offers the alternative of a direct password. It also references the return format, but does not detail the attachment_index parameter—however, the schema provides its default.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Unlock + parse'), the specific resource ('password-protected statement PDF attached to a Gmail message'), and its purpose (return parsed transactions). It differentiates from the sibling 'import_statement' by explicitly mentioning it in the final step, making the workflow clear.

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 provides two clear usage paths: deriving passwords from personal info or providing an explicit password, and directs the user to 'review via import_statement' as a next step. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives for other scenarios, such as using gmail_read_statement for non-protected PDFs.

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