finance_reconciliation_sweep

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

The annotations already indicate that the tool is not read-only and can be destructive. The description adds that it executes a domain agent action under JWT/tenant/company scope, which implies side effects but does not explicitly enumerate them. Since annotations cover the destructive nature, the description provides some additional context but not substantial new transparency.

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 concise and to the point. It includes the essential purpose, routing context, and parameter explanations in just a few lines. No fluff or redundant information is present.

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 provides enough to understand the basic operation, but it omits any details about output, return values, or expected behavior. Given it's a generic dispatch tool, some ambiguity remains. The completeness is adequate for simple usage but not thorough.

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 explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This gives basic meaning to both parameters, though it lacks detail on expected formats, allowed values, or how they influence the action. Schema coverage is minimal, but the descriptions add some value.

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 that the tool runs a finance domain agent action named 'finance_reconciliation_sweep' and routes through a dispatcher. It gives some context about scope but does not explain what reconciliation sweep actually does or how it differs from sibling finance tools. Purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specific operational detail.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or comparative scenarios. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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