search_unreconciled_lines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the key filter (only open/unreconciled lines), but does not describe pagination behavior, return format, or potential side effects, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action and subject. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it easy to parse and remember.

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 conveys the core purpose but omits information about return values and how parameters affect filtering. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent lacks some context needed for correct invocation, especially regarding what the tool returns.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (limit, account_id, partner_id). While parameter names are self-explanatory to some extent, the description adds no semantic value and fails to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 finds open (unreconciled) receivable/payable move lines, with a concrete example ('to match a payment to its invoice'). This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling tools like search_invoices (invoices vs move lines) and search_budget_lines.

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 example provides a clear use case for reconciliation scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so the guidance is implicit rather than comprehensive.

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