parse_bank_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auto-cropping feature and the structured return fields but lacks details on error handling, authentication beyond api_key, or limitations like file size or supported image formats.

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 with two sentences: one explaining the core functionality and the second listing output fields. It is front-loaded but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separated sections for process and output).

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and return fields but lacks details on async behavior (callback_url), file format limits, timeouts, or integration with get_task_result. Adequate but incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional nuance beyond the schema; it merely restates that callback_url is optional and the api_key is required. No parameter-level elaboration is provided.

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 it parses bank receipt images/PDFs, with automatic cropping of multiple receipts per page, and lists the structured fields returned. It distinguishes from siblings like parse_bank_statement and parse_invoice.

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 implies usage for bank receipt parsing but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like parse_bank_statement or parse_document. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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