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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the read-only behavior is already disclosed. The description adds context about the output fields (confidence, match type, status) but does not provide additional behavioral traits such as sorting, pagination, or any side effects. It is consistent with the annotations and adds some value beyond them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Lista os matches') and immediately clarifies the returned information. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple scope (a list operation with one required parameter and a filter) and the presence of a read-only annotation, the description adequately informs the agent of what the tool does and what output to expect. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but these are not critical for this straightforward listing tool.

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 schema covers both parameters with descriptions (sessionId = 'ID da sessão', status = 'Filtrar por status'), and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description mentions the status field in the output but does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, baseline 3 is 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a clear resource ('matches... em uma sessão de conciliação'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like reconciliation_list_accounts and reconciliation_list_exceptions. It also mentions the displayed fields (confiança, tipo de match, status), making the scope explicit.

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 this tool is used to list matches for a session, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus reconciliation_approve_match, reconciliation_execute, or other listing tools. No alternatives or exclusions are named, but the context of siblings and the read-only nature provide some implicit guidance.

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