explain_reconciliation_break

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the response includes inferred causes and next steps and cross-references open disputes, which is useful beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about whether the explanation is computed, cached, or potentially slow, nor about sensitivity of the returned analysis.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and states purpose plus output contents in one line; the Args block is short and earns its place because the schema has zero parameter descriptions. It is slightly verbose in restating parameter names, but no sentence is filler.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the definition covers purpose, parameter provenance, and the temporal-consistency requirement well. The residual gap is only the expected format of as_of and behavior when it is omitted.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: it gives break_id provenance plus a concrete example format (BRK-duplicate_capture-ORD-1020) and ties as_of to the value used in reconcile_payments, which is a genuine consistency constraint an agent would otherwise miss. It does not state the accepted format/type of as_of or whether omitting it changes results, which keeps it from a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Explain one reconciliation break') and enumerates what the explanation covers: what happened, likely causes, next steps, and related open disputes. This distinguishes it from siblings like reconcile_payments (which produces breaks) and list_open_disputes (which only lists disputes). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the parameter note that break_id comes 'from reconcile_payments', establishing the call as a follow-up to that tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_open_disputes or triage_dispute, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given beyond the id provenance.

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