reconcile_positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly states the tool 'reports' mismatches and enumerates the two kinds reported. The verb 'Compare' and 'reports' imply a read-only operation, though it doesn't explicitly confirm no side effects. The added context about portfolio heat is useful behavioral context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The subsequent sentences add valuable rationale and detail about mismatch types without waste. Every sentence contributes.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully explains what it does, why it matters, and what it reports. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms complete coverage. The description therefore doesn't need to explain parameter usage; it adds meaning by describing what is compared and reported, which is sufficient.

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 resources: 'Compare broker positions against open journalled theses.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_broker_positions or list_theses, as it focuses on reconciliation between the two.

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?

It explains why this tool is needed — portfolio heat comes from the journal, so positions without theses are invisible to risk checks. This implies when to use it (to find untracked positions or unfilled theses), but it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools.

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