Get reconciliation statement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation by using 'Return' and specifies the data returned, but it does not disclose potential edge cases, formatting, or session context beyond that. This is acceptable for a read-only tool but lacks depth.

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 sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the action and core resource. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide complete context. It gives a high-level summary but omits details about time range semantics, account object formats, and the structure of the returned statement. This is insufficient for a tool with three parameters and no structured return info.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions 'account' implicitly but does not explain the start_time and end_time parameters at all. The account parameter's flexible schema (string or object) is not addressed, leaving significant gaps.

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 clearly states the tool returns account opening/closing balances and transaction running balances for reconciliation. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_financial_summary or get_financial_trends, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'for reconciliation' implies the tool should be used when a reconciliation statement is needed, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead. The intended use is clear from context but not fully articulated.

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