reconcile_pending

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the blocking mechanism, the clearing of blocks for resting orders, and the risk of doubling orders if missing ones are blindly resolved. It also explains the safety layer's role, providing sufficient transparency.

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 concise yet complete, with each sentence adding value. It is well-structured: main action, context, mechanism, and parameter usage. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (safety-critical reconciliation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description covers the problem, behavior, parameter, and recommended workflow. It does not describe return values, but the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable.

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 only parameter, resolve_missing, has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description adds clear meaning: setting it to true clears the block for not-found orders only after verification via positions/trade_history. This adds critical context beyond 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 description clearly states that the tool reconciles dispatched-but-unconfirmed orders against IBKR's open orders, explaining the specific scenario (timeout/crash) and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_order or order_status by addressing a unique problem of blocked resends.

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 explains when to use this tool (after timeout/crash when an order may have landed without journaling) and provides guidance on handling missing orders (recommending verification before setting resolve_missing=true). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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