Reconcile Bank Transactions

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description does not disclose what modifications occur (e.g., creation of journal entries, confirmation of transactions). It only describes modes without behavioral consequences, leaving the agent uncertain about side effects.

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, each earning its place. The first states the tool's purpose, the second lists modes with their uses. No extraneous information.

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 a destructive nature, the description should explain expected outcomes (e.g., what 'execute_auto_confirm' actually does) and prerequisites. It lacks completeness about results and dependencies, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 description adds functional context to the 'mode' parameter by explaining each enum value's purpose. It also implicitly relates 'max_date_gap' and 'min_confidence' to specific modes, enhancing understanding beyond the schema definitions.

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 identifies the tool as a 'merged bank reconciliation entry point' and lists specific modes for different reconciliation tasks (invoice-match suggestions, auto-confirm, inter-account transfers). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'reconcile_currency_rounding' and 'reconcile_inter_account_transfers'.

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 explicitly tells when to use each mode ('Use mode='suggest' for...', etc.), providing clear guidance. However, it does not directly compare with the sibling 'reconcile_inter_account_transfers' or explain when not to use this tool.

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