cedulon_audit

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, the annotations already cover the safety profile and closed-world assumption. The description adds the outcome contract ('balanced or findings') and names the comparison sources, but it does not explain what findings contain, how failures are expressed, or any other behavioral caveats. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded ('Reconcile...') and the outcome is stated in the second sentence. Every phrase earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for an audit tool whose parameters are documented in the schema.

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 7-parameter nested-object tool with no output schema, the description is a bit thin: it gives the high-level result ('balanced or findings') but not the shape of findings or any guidance on how trust/manifest inputs affect the audit. The rich schema compensates for parameter coverage, but the return contract remains under-specified.

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 100%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, but the schema already explains trust, manifest, payee/issuer/witness/manifest trust, and extraSettlements in enough detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Reconcile') and identifies the exact resources involved: the in-process receipt chain and checkpoint are compared against the rail extract. It also says the result is either 'balanced or findings,' which distinguishes this audit/reconciliation tool from siblings like spend, verify_receipt, export_ledger, and status.

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 for reconciliation and audit-style checks, so an agent can infer it is not for spending, single-receipt verification, exporting, or status. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of a sibling, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions.

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