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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by clarifying 'Counts only; reconciling is done in the taxapp app' — telling the agent this tool cannot mutate anything and where the write path actually lives.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the key constraint ('counts only') carried in the second. The parenthetical defining reconciliation is arguably extra, but it aids disambiguation and costs little.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description communicates the return shape as counts of reconciled vs still-to-do, which is enough for a read-only status tool. Notes on pagination or exact count fields are absent but not essential here.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both tax_year (including the NZ year-ending convention and default) and organisation_id (when required vs optional) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource with scope: 'how far bank reconciliation has got for one New Zealand tax year'. It even parenthesizes what reconciliation means and specifies the output is counts, which is enough to separate it from the sibling listing tools like get_bank_inbox.

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 implied (checking progress of reconciliation within a tax year) but the description names no alternative and gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition, e.g. versus get_bank_inbox or get_tax_year_overview.

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