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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that each record reports whether it has changed since signing, i.e. a tamper/staleness signal — but says nothing about ordering, volume, or whether unsigned or superseded reconciliations appear.

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?

A single dense sentence with the scope front-loaded ('Every signed reconciliation') and the returned fields following as a colon list. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause adds information.

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 no input params and no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying the return shape, which it does by naming the five reported fields. It is slightly short on scope boundaries — whether the list is complete history or current-state only, and whether results are ordered or bounded — but is otherwise adequate for a simple read 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The field enumeration in the description is the only semantic surface, and it is appropriately covered.

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 resource and scope: it lists every signed reconciliation and enumerates the fields carried (account, through date, figures, signer, changed-since flag). This clearly separates it from the mutation sibling rec_sign_off and from rec_matches. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the nearest read siblings (rec_reconciliation, rec_matches), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is a list of signed reconciliations, so an agent can infer 'call this to audit sign-offs'. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to rec_reconciliation / rec_get_match for detail on a single reconciliation, leaving routing to inference.

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