reconcile

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context by saying the result includes confirmed values, gaps, conflicts, and the residual unanswered questions — that tells the agent what the tool produces rather than merely mutates. It omits, however, any statement of prerequisites, what happens when documents are missing, or whether it is read-only.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the return shape. Every clause conveys information and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the description still summarizes the output categories helpfully. The only gap is the implicit dependency on prior ingestion, which an agent calling this cold would not learn from the definition.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies no input is required and that the scope is automatically the ingested document set. There is nothing further it could usefully clarify about parameters.

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 ('cross-reference') applied to named resources (AIS, 26AS, Form 16, trades), which is clearly distinct from the sibling ingest_* and compute_* tools. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from output-side siblings like validate_itr, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this runs after ingestion to check consistency across documents, but the description never says when to call it versus validate_itr or detect_schedules, nor states any prerequisite that the documents be ingested first.

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