coinbase_reconcile_preview_intent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only and performs no DOM interaction, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not describe what the diff returns (e.g., fields that differ, errors) or any edge-case behavior, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise at 20 words split into two focused sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies inputs and constraints. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and complex nested object parameters, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value (e.g., what the diff looks like), error cases, or how to interpret results. The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool safely and effectively.

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?

The schema has two object parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides minimal additional meaning by labeling 'intent' as 'intended order fields' and 'preview' as 'preview-shaped object', but does not explain their structure or required fields. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid inputs.

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 performs a 'preview-vs-intent diff' for safety checks, and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it performs no clicking or DOM interaction. The verb 'diff' combined with the input specification makes the purpose specific and 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('for future safety checks') and what it does not do ('no clicking or DOM interaction'), implying it should be used before action-oriented tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives, which would elevate the score to 5.

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