reconcile

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the output: 'Returns matched pairs (with the rule and a confidence score), unmatched ids on each side, and the overall match rate.' It does not mention any side effects, but the tool appears to be a pure computation. Could be improved by explicitly stating it does not modify data.

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 well-structured sentences: first covers purpose and method, second covers output. No redundancy, front-loaded with key action.

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 with 5 parameters (2 required) and a nested input schema, the description covers the matching rules and output structure. However, it lacks details on parameter ranges (e.g., day_tolerance 0-30, fuzzy_threshold 0-1) and their effect on matching. Output schema exists but is not detailed here; the description sufficiently summarizes it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains matching methods (exact ref, amount+date, fuzzy), which relate to 'day_tolerance' and 'fuzzy_threshold', but does not describe 'left' and 'right' explicitly (though they are clear from context). The parameter 'reference' in the nested schema is also not mentioned. Partial compensation but insufficient for full clarity.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Reconcile two ledgers with a multi-rule engine (exact ref, amount+date, fuzzy).' It specifies the resource (ledgers) and the action (reconcile) with distinct matching methods, and distinguishes itself from sibling FX tools.

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 reconciling two sets of ledger entries, and the sibling tools are all FX-related, so usage context is clear. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives.

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