reconcile_ledger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates the seven exception kinds, explains what as_of decides, and warns that include_matches produces a 'large output'. It is silent on whether the operation is purely read-only, on required permissions, and on failure modes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 is front-loaded, followed by the exception taxonomy and then the args, so the most selection-relevant information comes first. The 'Args:' block is a fragment list rather than prose but every line is informative and non-redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, and the description covers purpose, exception vocabulary, and all four parameters. Against zero annotation coverage the only real gap is the safety/mutation profile, which is not stated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all four parameters get real semantics (as_of as the overdue cutoff, amount_tolerance as same-currency equality bound, date_window_days as the landing window for reference-less payments, include_matches as output expansion). This meaning could not be recovered from the bare parameter titles.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource pair: 'Match invoices to payments and list every exception', naming the resource (invoices/payments) and the output (exceptions). It is distinguishable from siblings like vendor_balances (balances) and explain_exception (explains one), but it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this versus run_sql, vendor_balances, or explain_exception, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the purpose sentence.

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