Reconcile Currency Rounding

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

Annotations mark it non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: dry-run by default, and two distinct remediation paths (in-place fixes for <0.10 EUR vs FX journals for 0.10-1.00 EUR), which tells the agent exactly what mutations occur. It does not cover permissions or rollback, keeping it below 5.

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 compact sentences: the first front-loads purpose and scope, the second conveys the dry-run default and the two fix thresholds. No filler or repetition.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations convey the safety profile and the two remediation modes. It stops short of what the dry-run returns or how many candidates get processed, but the schema covers the input controls, so this is largely complete.

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 100%, so every parameter (execute, max_candidates, FX accounts, deprecated liability assertion) is already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the execute flag, adding no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Reconcile) and resource (PARTIALLY_PAID purchase-invoice currency residuals) with scope (small) that clearly separates it from sibling reconcilers like reconcile_inter_account_transfers and reconcile_bank_transactions.

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 explains the dry-run default and the execute=true switch, which implies safe trial-then-commit usage, but never states when to reach for this tool versus other reconciliation or purchase-invoice tools, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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