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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it performs arithmetic reconciliation and does not authenticate inputs, and it requires reduction categories to remain distinct, though it omits rounding and completeness behavior.

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 tightly packed sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and scope are front-loaded before the important arithmetic-versus-authentication clarification.

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?

The high-level purpose is clear, but for a complex nested reconciliation schema with no output schema, it leaves key behavioral expectations under-specified, including how completeness and rounding affect the reconciliation result.

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 0% and the single parameter is a complex nested statement object. The description only hints at reduction-category handling ('recoveries/write-offs/sales/upgrades distinct') and does not explain opening/closing values, additions, amount units, rounding, or the complete flag.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reconcile supplied NPA movements. It also clarifies that the tool separates reduction categories and performs arithmetic rather than input authentication, which distinguishes its role from validation tools.

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?

It implies usage when NPA movement data is supplied and explicitly excludes input authentication. However, it does not state prerequisites, when to use it versus the sibling review/evidence tools, or what to do with incomplete data.

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