Check Stale Accounts

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the context of date comparison but does not detail behavior such as what happens if accounts have no transactions or how results are formatted. This is adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.

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 conveys the core purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how it indicates staleness. It also fails to document the parameters. Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params), more detail is needed for an agent to invoke 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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not clarify the meaning or usage of 'days', 'account', 'start_date', or 'end_date'. It only vaguely refers to 'latest transaction dates', leaving the agent to guess parameter roles.

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 function: comparing latest SimpleFIN transaction dates against Firefly III dates for mapped accounts. It uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('transaction dates'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reconcile_find_missing_transactions or reconcile_check_balance_mismatches.

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 implies the tool is for identifying stale accounts by comparing dates, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or context about prerequisites.

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