get_unreconciled_splits

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses detailed output behavior: the leading 'Showing X-Y of Z splits' indicator, the summary footer reflecting the full unreconciled set even when lines are clipped, and the structured JSON shape under verbose=true. It also defines the as_of_date filtering semantics. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves logically through output shape, paging, verbose mode, and parameters. Each sentence carries behavioral or semantic content; the Args block is compactly formatted. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it documents every parameter with defaults and semantics, explains the response layout in both text and JSON modes, and covers paging and count-only behavior. The only omitted detail—sort order—is not necessary for making a correct call.

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 compensates fully: every parameter is explained in the Args block—account reference formats, as_of_date inclusive semantics, verbose output modes, limit paging/count-only, and offset indexing. This goes well beyond the bare type/default information in the 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 opening sentence, 'Get unreconciled splits for an account,' names a specific verb and resource, making the tool's function immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling reconciliation tools such as get_reconciliation_status, though the 'unreconciled splits' phrase is distinctive enough to avoid most confusion.

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 provides rich usage context: it explains paging with offset, the count-only behavior of limit=0, and when to switch to verbose=true ('when you need machine-readable fields rather than a report'). However, it never names alternative tools or states when not to use this tool, so it stops short of explicit route selection.

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