validate_masters

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

Annotations cover the read-only/idempotency profile, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: each call appends metadata-only receipt lines to a local log (tool, company, counts, fingerprints, no book content) while writing nothing to Tally. It also discloses candidate bounds (25 names, 8192 bytes), truncation reporting, and that a near-miss is never auto-resolved — all beyond what the annotations state.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and virtually every sentence carries substantive semantics about matching or returns rather than filler. The trade-off is a dense, run-on block without structure, which burdens parsing but not length.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating match_state values, the exact_live_spelling-only-on-bound-rows rule, and candidate_count/truncation reporting. It is thorough on semantics and side effects, though it doesn't describe the overall response shape (e.g. per-name result entries) or error behavior.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters, including the minLength/maxLength/pattern constraints that the description restates. The description adds only incremental meaning (identifier precedence inside a name, spelling-as-written), 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Bind 1–100 nonblank ledger names against the live catalogue') and covers scope (count, per-name length). An agent can immediately tell this apart from sibling readers like masters or ledger_masters, since this validates names rather than listing them.

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?

It situates the tool in a workflow by noting that only 'exact' is admitted by build_import_xml and that folded names remain near_miss because there is no qualified scope to bind them, which tells the agent when a near_miss is acceptable versus blocking. It gives clear contextual usage but never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition.

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