get_reconciliation_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Reporting-only'. It goes well beyond the annotation by detailing bucket semantics, sort order (most-behind first), pending-split counts, the no_reconcile slot behavior, and that reconcile tools still operate on excluded accounts — valuable operational context.

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 dense but tightly organized: purpose first, then bucket semantics, then parameter details. Every sentence contributes information, including the concrete no_reconcile example, and no filler or restatement of the tool name is present.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required from the description. The description covers edge cases (excluded accounts, dormant definition, count-only mode, pagination bounds, verbose vs compact output) and gives enough context to invoke the tool correctly without further lookups.

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%, but the description's Args section fully compensates: verbose explains compact text vs structured JSON and when each is useful, limit documents default, max, and the 0 = count-only behavior, and offset is clearly defined as 0-indexed. This is exactly the semantic content an agent needs beyond the raw schema.

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 names a specific resource ('per-account reconciliation table') and a specific question it answers ('WHICH accounts are never reconciled / dormant / behind?'). It distinguishes itself from the dashboard's aggregate counts and from sibling tools like get_unreconciled_splits by stating its unique bucketed, per-account scope.

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 clearly frames the tool as reporting-only and explains when its classification buckets apply, including the excluded-account path via set_account_slot. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead for actionable reconciliation, but the reporting-only context and bucket definitions make the usage intent clear.

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