intercompany_accounting__match_balances

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

The description lacks details on what 'compare' entails (e.g., whether it returns differences, highlights discrepancies, or performs matching). The tolerance parameter hints at a matching process, but this is not explained. With no annotations, critical behavioral cues are missing.

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 sentence and under-specified. While concise, it fails to deliver essential information. It could be expanded slightly to cover key aspects without being verbose.

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's complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is wholly inadequate. The tolerance parameter and object structure are not addressed, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool correctly.

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 description does not explain any of the three parameters (tolerance, entity_a_books, entity_b_books). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description bears full responsibility. The mention of 'counterparty key' is not mapped to any parameter, leaving the agent confused about 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 action ('compare') and the specific resources ('IC receivable on A vs IC payable on B per counterparty key'). It distinguishes this tool from its siblings (elimination_entry, unrealized_profit_in_inventory) by its focus on matching. However, it could be more explicit about the matching operation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool over the sibling tools (e.g., for reconciliation vs elimination). There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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