Diff a receipt folder against sevDesk

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully assumes the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states that the tool 'reads the filesystem but never writes' and 'sevDesk access is read-only,' which reassures the agent about safety and side effects. The matching algorithm and the bidirectional report are also disclosed, leaving no ambiguity about behavior.

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 extremely concise—only three sentences—yet covers purpose, behavior, matching algorithm, and file format expectations without any wasted words. The first sentence immediately establishes the core function, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: a report of mismatches in both directions. The matching algorithm and parameter roles are fully described. For a reconciliation tool with 6 parameters, this description provides all necessary context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how the parameters interact: from/to filter vouchers, dayTolerance relaxes date matching, and extensions and recursive control file scanning. This contextual enrichment justifies a score of 4.

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's purpose: compare local receipt PDFs against sevDesk vouchers and report mismatches. It specifies the matching algorithm, file naming conventions, and the bidirectional nature of the report. This stands out distinctly from sibling tools, which focus on listing, creating, or manipulating sevDesk entities, not local file reconciliation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (reconciling local receipts with sevDesk vouchers) and details the matching logic and expected file formats. It implicitly guides usage by explaining how parameters like from/to and dayTolerance affect matching. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list provides enough context for differentiation.

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