list_reconciliation_rejections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it declares the operation read-only, specifies ascending order, describes the same set consumed by the candidate detector, and thoroughly explains the empty-shape edge cases for disabled/unconfigured backend states. This is far beyond minimal disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral specifics, usage context, and edge cases. Each sentence contributes distinct value, and the structure is easily scanned. No fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The description is complete for a tool with a fairly complex behavioral profile: it covers ordering, consumer relationship, disabled/unconfigured states, and points to the need for surrogate IDs. The presence of an output schema means return-field detail can be deferred, while the description handles the operational context meticulously.

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 exactly 50%, leaving 'server_version' completely undocumented. The description adds no information about either parameter—neither model_id nor server_version. Since the schema covers only half and the description compensates for none, the agent receives no extra semantics for the undocumented parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List persisted reconciliation rejections for a model.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly connecting to the candidate detector and unreject_reconciliation_candidate, making its role in the reconciliation workflow unmistakable.

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 gives concrete use cases ('render the rejected section of a triage view, or find the surrogate id needed by unreject_reconciliation_candidate') that help the agent decide when to invoke it. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives to avoid, but the context strongly implies distinctions from related reconciliation tools.

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