Match Transaction to Invoice

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: 'Affects fiscal reconciliation records', 'Requires confirm=true', and 'Idempotent'. It also provides an example. Annotations already indicate idempotency, but the description adds the fiscal impact and confirm requirement.

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 bilingual, adding redundancy. It is not overly long, but the repetition of English and Spanish increases length without adding unique information. The core action is front-loaded.

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?

Given 5 parameters, one enum, idempotent hint, and output schema existence, the description covers the essential context (fiscal effect, confirm requirement, example). It lacks details on error conditions or post-conditions, but overall is sufficient.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description includes an example demonstrating parameter usage (transactionId='tx_abc', etc.), which adds practical clarity beyond the schema alone.

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's verb-resource pair: 'Link a bank transaction to an invoice or expense document'. It specifies the domain (reconciliation) and distinguishes it from siblings like 'categorize_transaction' by focusing on document linking.

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 explains when to use (linking bank transactions to documents) and provides context: 'Affects fiscal reconciliation records' and 'Requires confirm=true'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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