finance_xero_bank_reconciliation

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

Beyond the annotations, which already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it auto-matches high-confidence transactions and surfaces ambiguous ones for review. It does not fully spell out side effects such as which ledger entries are modified, but the annotations cover the destructive nature and the description adds a useful operational model.

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 efficient and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence behavioral summary, and a concise Args block. Every sentence conveys useful information with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema, destructive annotations, and a clear Args list, the description covers the core selection and invocation needs. The only slight gap is that it doesn't detail what happens after ambiguous matches are surfaced or whether review is handled elsewhere, but the output schema and sibling context reduce the severity of that omission.

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?

Despite the schema having 0% description coverage, the description's Args section compensates fully: it explains message, account_id (including the 'empty = all bank accounts' behavior), and from_date/to_date with the required YYYY-MM-DD format. This is exactly the semantic information an agent needs beyond the bare schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Reconcile Xero bank-feed transactions against the ledger.' It clearly identifies the operation and the financial objects involved, and the additional mention of auto-matching vs. surfacing ambiguous matches distinguishes it from reporting or review-only siblings.

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 implies use for Xero bank-feed reconciliation tasks and explains the matching behavior, but it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives like finance_xero_reconciliation_review or finance_stripe_ledger_reconciliation. No explicit exclusions or conditional routing are provided.

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