create_recon_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses async execution and directs to get_job_status for monitoring. It mentions prerequisites but omits other behavioral aspects like failure modes, idempotency, or required permissions.

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 two sentences with no fluff: first sentence states purpose, second covers async behavior and prerequisites. Information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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 the complexity (nested parameters, async job creation) and absence of output schema, the description lacks key details: return value (e.g., job ID), error handling, result interpretation. It covers only purpose and a few constraints.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (source, target, checks, partition_config). The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill these objects.

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 creates a comprehensive reconciliation job with multiple checks, using specific verb 'create' and resource 'reconciliation job'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like individual check runs by emphasizing 'comprehensive' and listing prerequisites.

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 includes prerequisites (validate_table_exists, compare_table_structures) and notes the async nature with monitoring via get_job_status. However, it does not explicitly contrast when to use this tool vs running separate individual checks.

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