reconcile_trades

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only states the tool 'runs a report'. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. The report nature implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is overly minimal, missing valuable details that could improve usability.

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 zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks essential details like parameter explanations, output format, or behavioral constraints. An agent cannot reliably determine how to invoke or interpret results.

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 adds no meaning to the two parameters (user_id and workflow_id). The agent receives no hints about the purpose or format of these parameters beyond the schema types.

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 it runs a trade reconciliation report comparing executed vs cleared trades. It uses a specific verb 'Run' and resource 'trade reconciliation report', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_execution_details or get_trade_history that focus on different aspects of trade data.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify if this should be used after trade execution or for specific reconciliation periods.

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