search_reconciliation_sessions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully declares 'Read-only', which is the key safety signal an agent needs, but it says nothing about pagination defaults/limits or what the result set contains, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded ahead of the read-only note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only search over four fully documented optional params with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and safety. Minor gap: it says 'open and completed' while the schema's status example reads 'InProgress / Completed', a small terminology mismatch.

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 100%, so page, pageSize, status, and accountId are already fully documented. The description's 'filters by account and status' restates two of them without adding syntax or value detail; 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 (search bank reconciliation sessions) and scopes it to open and completed sessions with account/status filters. It is distinguishable from the mutation siblings (start/complete/cancel_reconciliation) and get_reconciliation_summary, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 by the search verb and the '(open and completed)' scope note, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative such as get_reconciliation_summary or the start/complete/cancel siblings. An agent must infer the routing.

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