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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds a key constraint not in annotations: no cross-Location fan-out and the prerequisite for supplying location. It does not discuss pagination behavior for the limit parameter, leaving a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and scope, and the location constraint is clearly separated. There is some narrative padding ('out of reach of the bill, check, and card tools') that is helpful for routing but slightly longer than needed.

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?

With an output schema and rich annotations present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers scope, search inputs, and the download handoff well. The omission of journal_id and limit semantics is the only substantive gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does clarify memo, amount, start/end dates, and location semantics. However, 'journal_id' — likely the primary key — and 'limit' are never explained, leaving two of seven parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List invoice/receipt scans attached to JOURNAL (GL) entries') and explicitly differentiates from the bill, check, and card attachment tools. An agent can distinguish this from get_check_attachments and get_credit_card_attachments without reading any schema.

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?

Gives concrete retrieval guidance ('Search by date range, memo, or amount') and an explicit next step ('pass a FileID to download_attachment'). Also states the when-not case: it never fans out across Locations and location is required when the connection has several (routing to list_locations).

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