reconcile_registry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the 'Read-only' note is largely redundant. However, the description goes well beyond annotations by enumerating the exact outcome classes returned (DUPLICATE_RISK, UNATTRIBUTED, ORPHAN_ORDER, MATCHED count) and explaining what each anomaly means, which is genuinely 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?

Two tight sentences: the action is front-loaded, and the parenthetical glosses on each return category add meaning without padding. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so completely by naming every result category. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the tool is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (reconcile) and the two resources being cross-checked (registry against gift tracker), which is clearly distinct from sibling readers like get_registry or get_gift_tracker. An agent can tell this is a diagnostic cross-reference operation without opening any schema.

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 what reconciliation surfaces, which implies when the tool is useful (after orders/fulfillment drift), but it never explicitly states when to run this instead of get_registry or get_gift_tracker, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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