Match Transaction to Invoice

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it affects fiscal reconciliation records and requires confirm=true, providing useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Bilingual repetition (English and Spanish) adds length. While clear, the Spanish part is redundant for an English-dominant agent. Could be more concise.

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 presence of output schema and good parameter descriptions, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior: it links transactions to documents, affects fiscal records, is idempotent, and requires confirmation. No major gaps.

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% with parameter descriptions. Description adds an example and notes that confirm must be true, enhancing understanding beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Link a bank transaction to an invoice or expense document' and resource. Specifies context (RECONCILIATION) and distinguishes from siblings like categorize_transaction or apply_deposit. No ambiguity.

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?

Mentions require confirm=true and idempotency (re-matching is no-op), which gives usage conditions. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among sibling tools.

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