Riconcilia movimenti bancari e rate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it explains the matching criteria (equal amount, client name or invoice number in the causale, proximity to due date), the confidence levels returned, and that negative amounts are ignored. It does not describe error handling or the exact response structure, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 read-only and write-alternative guidance, then input constraints. It is informative but includes a final English sentence that largely repeats the Italian content, adding redundancy rather than new value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does so conceptually by stating that matches are proposed with a confidence level and reasons. However, the exact shape of the response (e.g., list of match objects, fields) is not specified, leaving a modest gap for an agent interpreting the output.

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 schema documents the tolerance parameter but lacks a top-level description for the transactions array (50% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that transactions come from the bank file and that negative amounts are ignored, and it maps transaction fields to date, amount, and causale. Tolerance itself is only explained in the schema, not the description.

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 a specific verb and resource: it confronts incoming bank statement transactions with unpaid invoice installments and proposes matches. It distinguishes itself from listing siblings like fic_list_installments by describing reconciliation and explicitly routing write operations to fic_set_installment_status.

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 clearly says to pass transactions read from the bank file and that negative outflows are ignored, and it names the alternative tool for recording a confirmed payment. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g., when reconciliation is unnecessary or already done), so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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