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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it keeps write-offs, sales, upgrades and cash recoveries distinct, and it performs no authentication or classification.

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?

Two dense sentences carry the entire meaning with no wasted words. The primary behavior is front-loaded, followed by the key limitations. It does not repeat schema content or annotation content.

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 description covers the core reconciliation logic and limitations well, which is essential for a nested-input tool. However, with no output schema, it never states what the tool returns, and it leaves some nested parameter behaviors implicit, such as how `complete` or `rounding_decimals` affect the check.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single nested `statement` parameter. It explains that the statement is a closed NPA movement table and connects the arithmetic fields, but it does not add meaning for nested fields like `complete`, `amount_unit`, or `rounding_decimals`.

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 ('Reconcile') and resource ('caller-supplied closed NPA movement table'), then defines the exact arithmetic identity being checked. It also separates itself from loan classification and authentication, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 use case is explicit: reconcile a disclosed NPA movement statement arithmetically. It also gives clear when-not guidance by stating it does not authenticate input or classify individual loans, so the agent knows not to use it for those tasks.

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