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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that results are paginated and include both manual and auto-generated entries, enriching understanding of the tool's behavior. It does not mention ordering or potential edge cases, but the core behaviors are covered.

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 at two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and efficiently communicates key details (inclusions, pagination) without extraneous information.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description lists the expected fields (date, description, financial year, debit/credit lines) and mentions pagination, which gives the agent a solid understanding of what to expect. It lacks explicit response structure, but this is covered indirectly via parameter descriptions for cursor and limit.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool description itself does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already provides clear semantics for all five parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists journal entries with specific fields (date, description, financial year, debit/credit lines) and explicitly notes it includes both manual and auto-generated entries, making its purpose 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?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like list_transactions or get_committed_ledger. It mentions pagination but lacks context on selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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