scf_get_reconciliation_run

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is safe for a viewer role, it returns the computed diff, and it shows the planned action "currently recorded" rather than an applied action. This helps the agent understand the read-only and inspection-oriented nature of the call without contradicting the annotation.

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 well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core semantics ("Get one reconciliation run in detail"), then briefly conveys the read-only nature and the key output components, making every part informative.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It describes the return content sufficiently even without an output schema, and the parameter descriptions cover where to obtain the required IDs. No critical gaps remain for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have helpful descriptions explaining how to obtain org_id and run_id. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Get one reconciliation run in detail," and enumerates its contents (computed diff, deprecated entities needing a decision, planned action). This clearly distinguishes it from scf_list_reconciliation_runs (list vs. single detail) and from action-oriented siblings like scf_set_reconciliation_actions or scf_apply_catalog_reconciliation.

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 makes the use context clear: use this when you need detailed information about one reconciliation run, and the parenthetical "read — viewer role" indicates it is a read operation accessible to viewers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it over listing or mutation tools.

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