aruba_reconcile_sent_received

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds 'read-only' aligning with annotations but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, date ranges, or aggregation 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and waste-free, conveying the core purpose without superfluous words.

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 an output schema and four parameters, the description does not explain what the reconciliation summary comprises, how parameters affect it, or how it compares to siblings. It only gives a high-level overview, leaving the agent to infer details from schema and tool name.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no information about the four parameters. Their titles (Date From, Date To, Group By, Limit) are minimally informative, but the tool's description does not clarify expected formats, valid values for group_by, or behavior of limit.

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 is a read-only reconciliation summary between sent and received Aruba invoices, distinguishing it from many sibling tools that focus on individual invoices or other reports. However, it could be more specific about the nature of the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aruba_compare_invoice_totals or aruba_monthly_summary. The description does not include when to use or when not to use it.

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