reconcile_cross_saas

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

Without annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it detects duplicate fingerprints within freee. However, it does not reveal side effects, data mutation, or prerequisites, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, relatively concise. However, the use of parentheses and equals signs makes the first sentence slightly cluttered, reducing readability.

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 the tool's complexity (cross-SaaS reconciliation, duplication detection), the description lacks essential context: no return value, no error conditions, no prerequisites, and no integration status information. With no output schema or annotations, this is insufficient.

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%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (period_start, period_end). No format, purpose, or example is given, forcing the agent to infer from names alone.

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 it performs cross-SaaS reconciliation between freee and MF, and detects duplicate fingerprints. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying its cross-SaaS scope, though the 'freee-only mode' adds some ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool. It mentions the tool is currently in freee-only mode, implying limitations, but does not provide alternatives or state clearly when to choose this over siblings like check_duplicate.

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