Audit Account Reconciliation

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description adds value by disclosing that everything comes back in one request and that accountId expands the payload with uncleared/unapproved rows since reconciliation. It also pre-empts a false-positive interpretation (old dates are not errors when balances match), which is genuine behavioral context beyond the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence carries a distinct instruction. Phrasing is telegraphic ('(one request)', 'Reconcile in YNAB UI') and slightly clipped, but there is no redundant filler.

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 detail is not required, and the description supplies the interpretive guidance an audit tool needs. The remaining gap is the undocumented budgetId and no explicit statement of what happens when accountId is omitted versus supplied beyond the schema's own note.

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 coverage is 50%: accountId is documented in the schema, and the description adds 'since reconciliation' and 'for bank comparison' meaning on top of it. budgetId, however, is left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 for this coverage level.

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?

States a specific verb ('Summarize') and a concrete resource ('open-account reconciliation dates and cleared/uncleared balances'), which is distinct from any sibling (e.g., audit_credit_card_payments, get_account). No sibling is named as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

'Reconcile in YNAB UI' is an explicit boundary statement telling the agent this tool inspects but does not mutate. 'Old dates alone are not errors if cleared balance matches; inspect older uncleared rows' gives interpretive guidance on how to act on results. Still no explicit 'use X instead when...' routing to siblings.

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