get_bank_reconciliation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it is a 'report' (implying read-only), but does not describe required parameters (account_id is required but unmentioned), date range behavior, or what the response contains beyond the matched/unmatched distinction. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a report tool.

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 a single concise sentence in French, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient, but the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary details, making it slightly under-specified for a tool lacking annotations and schema descriptions.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description must provide all context. It only covers the core purpose (matched vs unmatched lines) but omits parameter semantics, date handling, and return structure. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with confidence.

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 has three parameters (account_id, date_start, date_end) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain the meaning or format of these parameters. While account_id is somewhat inferable from the tool name, the date parameters and their optionality are not clarified, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'Rapport de rapprochement bancaire (lignes rapprochées vs non-rapprochées)' clearly identifies the tool as returning a bank reconciliation report with matched and unmatched lines. It distinguishes from siblings like get_bank_transactions (list transactions) and reconcile_bank_line (action), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is used to view bank reconciliation status by mentioning matched/unmatched lines, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not state when this should be preferred over get_bank_transactions or reconcile_bank_line, making usage guidance only indirectly inferred.

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