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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by stating the result is computed server-side from live Fortnox data and spans all pages, which tells the agent about data freshness and completeness.

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 core reconciliation scope is front-loaded in the first clause, with the example and data-source caveat after it. It is slightly dense with dash-separated enumerations but every part is informative.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to explain scope and data origin, which it does. It is nearly complete, though it could note what happens on a failed match or how 'leverantor' resolution errors surface.

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%, including the fallback behavior when 'leverantor' is omitted, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (reconcile) and resource (supplier statement open items vs the supplier subledger) and enumerates the outcome categories (matches, amount differences, missing on our side, only on theirs). This clearly separates it from siblings like reconcile_ledgers and reconcile_card_transactions.

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 example question ('Stäm av kontoutdraget från Telia som ligger i inkorgen mot vår reskontra') gives a concrete when-to-use context, including that the statement lives in the inbox. It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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