reconcile_checkout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden, and it does disclose the important epistemic limits: it 'cannot rule out delayed processing or duplicates' and never retries or places an order. However, it never states what the call actually changes, whether the acknowledgment is recorded or reversible, or what a caller receives back, so the agent still lacks the mutation-side picture.

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 with the action and the precondition in front and the scope limits immediately after. There is no filler or repetition, and the negative constraint is not buried.

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?

For a tool requiring five boolean confirmations, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition should explain why each gate exists and what happens when one is false. It covers the history/payment gates and the overall non-retry guarantee but omits the confirmation and in-flight gates and any return behavior.

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% across five required booleans, so the description must compensate. It explains two of them ('history checked', 'payment checked') through the precondition sentence, but explicit_confirmation, no_request_in_progress, and acknowledge_uncertainty are left to be inferred from their names alone, with no statement of which conditions cause rejection.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Acknowledge') with a specific object ('an uncertain checkout'), and adds a negative scope statement ('never retries or places an order') that separates it from submit_order and cancel_order in the sibling list. What remains slightly abstract is what the acknowledgment produces, but the core action is distinguishable.

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 gives a concrete precondition ('after checking official history and payment') that maps to the order_history/active_orders siblings, and an explicit exclusion ('never retries or places an order') that rules out submit_order. It does not name those siblings directly, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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