parse_bank_statement

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

No annotations are provided, leaving the description to fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions returning structured data but omits critical details such as file format support, required permissions, error handling, or any side effects of the operation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and output. No unnecessary words; every part contributes to understanding the tool's main purpose.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks information on required input formats, parameter interdependencies, return value structure, and potential limitations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use 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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds context by mentioning image or PDF inputs, but fails to explain the specific role of each parameter (api_key, file_path, file_url, callback_url) or the constraints on their usage.

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 parses bank statement images or PDFs and returns structured data like account info and transactions. It is specific to bank statements, distinguishing it from siblings like parse_bank_receipt or 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 the tool is for bank statement parsing, providing some context for when to use it. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like parse_document or parse_bank_receipt.

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