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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further: it details the dry-run default, the exact side effects of commit=true (adding missing rows as bank-confirmed, flagging unexplained ledger rows to review queue, recording the run), and the report contents. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations, with no contradiction.

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 sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently enumerates the report and commit behavior. Every clause earns its place; the description is both concise and information-dense.

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 tool's moderate complexity (9 parameters, mostly optional), the presence of an output schema, and the detailed annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: input formats, report items, dry-run vs commit semantics, and side effects. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 89% (all but account_id described). The description adds semantic context for key parameters: it explains the two input modes (csv vs rows) and the effect of commit, which is not fully captured in the schema. It does not re-describe each parameter but adds meaningful usage context, elevating it above the baseline.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Reconcile one account against a bank statement for a period.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like import_statement (which imports statements) and set_account_balance (which sets a balance) by specifying the reconciliation scope and the report output. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains how to supply the statement (CSV text or rows from a PDF) and the dry-run/commit workflow, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like import_statement or state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., 'for simple statement import, use import_statement instead'). The usage is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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