reconcile_registry

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining exactly what kinds of results are returned and what each means: DUPLICATE_RISK, UNATTRIBUTED, ORPHAN_ORDER, and MATCHED count. It also explicitly states 'Read-only,' reinforcing that no mutation occurs.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Each parenthetical earns its place by clarifying what each result category means, and the final 'Read-only' is a useful behavioral reinforcement despite also being in the annotations.

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 semantics. It does so thoroughly by naming all four result categories and explaining the implications of the risk cases. An agent has enough context to call this tool 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, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to explain. Schema coverage is vacuously 100%, and the description correctly focuses on behavior instead.

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 and resource pair: 'Reconcile the registry against the gift tracker.' It also distinguishes this from simple read tools like get_registry and get_gift_tracker by describing a mismatch-detection operation with named result categories.

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 makes the use case clear: this is a read-only reconciliation operation that surfaces discrepancies between registry and gift-tracker data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but with zero parameters and a self-contained purpose, the intended context is evident.

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