get_reconciliation_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavior burden. It clearly states this is 'Reporting-only', disclosing ordering behavior (most-behind first, with pending-split counts), bucketing logic, and the no_reconcile opt-out mechanism. It doesn't detail the exact output row structure or pagination edge cases, but given it's a read-only reporting tool and an output schema exists, the coverage is reasonably strong.

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 well-structured with a clear opening question framing, then bucket definitions, then an exclusion-setting aside, then args. It's dense but every sentence earns its place; slightly long but the content justifies the length given the conceptual categories being explained. The Args section is clean and tabular.

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?

This is a moderately complex reporting tool with 5 output buckets and special semantics (excluded accounts, count-only mode), but the description explains each bucket, ordering, the no_reconcile relationship, and parameter behavior. An output schema exists which covers return-value structure. For its complexity level, little is left unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate for all parameter meaning. It explains verbose ('Full JSON rows instead of compact TSV lines'), limit ('Page size, default 50, max 250, 0 = count only'), and offset ('0-indexed first row'). The explanation adds meaningful semantics — particularly the '0 = count only' for limit and verbose's TSV/JSON distinction — beyond what a bare schema with defaults would convey.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (per-account reconciliation table) and explicitly differentiates it from the dashboard's aggregate counts, answering the precise question 'WHICH accounts are never reconciled / dormant / behind?'. It distinguishes itself clearly from sibling tools like get_unreconciled_splits and reconcile_account by framing this as the reporting/status layer.

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 explicitly details each output bucket (behind, never, current, dormant, excluded) and explains the excluded category's purpose, including when to set no_reconcile (loans, escrow payables, statement-less accounts) with a concrete example call to set_account_slot. It also flags that reconcile tools still work on excluded accounts, clarifying when this reporting tool is appropriate independently.

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