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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral details: it discloses the 5% tolerance for weight comparison, the return of matches/mismatches per document, determinism, and billing implications. This significantly enriches transparency.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds substantive information, from the matching logic to the deterministic billing note. It is structured with a logical flow, though slightly verbose in the first sentence.

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 single parameter and absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior, including what it compares, tolerance, and return value. No critical gaps remain for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'id' parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable given the schema already defines the parameter fully.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Cross-document reconciliation' with specific actions 'find the other documents' and 'compare them field by field'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_document and list_documents by focusing on reconciliation and discrepancy detection.

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 usage by mentioning it 'catches the discrepancies that cause customs holds, amended entries and demurrage', giving clear contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of full explicitness.

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