conciliar_dia

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

No annotations, so description carries the burden. It lists output contents but doesn't disclose whether reconciliation writes to the local database or only reads. The cross-check with local bank implies possible writes but this is not stated.

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, zero waste. The first sentence states the core function and key outputs; the second adds the charge-vs-local-database cross-check. Efficient and front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (reconciliation across two systems with multiple output categories) and has no output schema. The description summarizes the output scope but doesn't specify return structure, how unmatched items are presented, or whether the operation has any written side effects. Acceptable for a simple single-param tool but leaves some gaps for a reconciliation workflow.

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 coverage is 100% and the single param (data) is described as YYYY-MM-DD format in the schema. The description adds context that this is a day-scoped reconciliation, reinforcing the parameter's meaning without needing much elaboration. With one well-documented param, baseline 3-4 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?

Clear verb+resource: reconciles Shopify orders with Pagar.me charges for a day. Specifies what it shows (reconciled orders, installments fees, fees, net, unmatched orders). Somewhat distinct from siblings which focus on syncing, refunds, and financial summaries, though the reconciliation overlap with resumo_financeiro isn't explicitly differentiated.

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 day-range usage ('de um dia') and the data parameter requirement. It mentions it crosses charges without orders against the local database, giving some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like sincronizar_* or resumo_financeiro, and gives no exclusion guidance.

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