reconcile_currency_residual

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

The description indicates a mutation (booking an adjustment), which aligns with the readOnlyHint=false annotation. However, it does not disclose details like permissions required, impact on other accounts, or reversibility. The added context 'clearing accumulated FX-rate residual' is helpful but minimal.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action and purpose. No unnecessary words or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema and minimal annotations, the description explains the purpose but lacks details on return behavior (e.g., does it return a transaction ID?). The 6 parameters are covered by schema, but essential context like output or side effects is missing.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it repeats 'adjustment transaction' without elaborating on parameters. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'Book' and the specific resource 'multi-currency account', with the purpose of bringing the account to the bank-reported balance by clearing accumulated FX-rate residual. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_transaction or run_bank_sync, which serve different purposes.

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 usage for multi-currency accounts with FX residual, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Sibling tools like create_transaction could be used for simple adjustments, but no comparison is made.

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