Reconcile document

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so it's a safe mutation. The description adds behavioral context by stating the tool returns refreshed line match statuses and a summary, and that it re-runs reconciliation, which implies state changes. No contradictions.

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 sentences cover purpose, return value, and usage context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (refreshed line match statuses and summary categories) and usage triggers. It is complete enough for effective use.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by suggesting discovery methods for fund_id ('via whoami or list_funds') and clarifying document_id's purpose, going beyond the schema alone.

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 the verb 're-run reconciliation' and identifies the specific resource: a document's extracted statement lines against the fund's ledger. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reconcile_cash_transaction and reconcile_financial_year by focusing on document-level reconciliation.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: after ledger changes (e.g., proposals approved) or when re-checking a statement. While it doesn't list exclusions or alternatives, the context is clear and actionable.

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