Reconcile bank transactions with vouchers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds real value by disclosing the heuristic nature of the matching and the two-directional output semantics. 'Read-only' repeats the annotation but does not contradict it.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scope, then the interpretive caveat. No redundant or filler text.

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?

With no output schema, the description works hard by signaling the result is a checklist of findings rather than a verdict. It could go slightly further in describing the shape of returned match/unmatched items, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters (from, to, maxItems, dayWindow) are fully documented by the schema. The description only alludes to date proximity, adding no extra meaning such as default window behavior or cap semantics. 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 (match/reconcile) and resource pair (bank transactions vs vouchers), plus the matching criteria (amount and date proximity). Distinct from siblings like sevdesk_find_duplicates or sevdesk_list_transactions, which do not cross-reference the two sets.

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?

Clearly frames both reporting directions — unmatched payments and uncovered non-draft vouchers — and warns that results are a heuristic checklist. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when not to use it (e.g. use find_duplicates for exact duplicates).

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