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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but the `GET` method signals a read-only operation and 'Fixed JSON' indicates the response format. It also discloses the company requirement, though it omits pagination, authentication expectations, and error behavior.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The endpoint, company requirement, and query/filter guidance are each stated directly.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the description points to a discovery tool for filters, so it is minimally sufficient for calling. Still, for a free-form query tool with no annotations, it lacks pagination and filter-shape detail that would make it fully self-contained.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that `company_name` is explicit and that `query` uses flat query fields, directing the agent to `describe_nextesy_operation` for filter details, but it does not enumerate query fields or syntax.

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 identifies the resource via the concrete endpoint `/api/v1/accounting/subledgers/customer/entries`, making it clear this retrieves customer subledger entries. It distinguishes itself from the supplier subledger by the `customer` path segment, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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?

It states a key prerequisite, 'Explicit company required,' and points to `describe_nextesy_operation` for filter discovery. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `get_supplier_subledger` or `get_account_statement_entries`.

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