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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the two-phase preview/post workflow, the requirement that the source file must remain unchanged for posting, and the need for a preview token and resolutions. Since annotations already signal mutability (readOnlyHint=false), the description's extra context about blocking issues and the token requirement is valuable.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds workflow conditions without extraneous detail. Every clause earns its place, making it both compact and informative.

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 the tool's complexity (dual preview/post modes, detailed resolutions schema, output schema present), the description provides the critical workflow glue: preview first, resolve issues, then post with the original file and token. Missing sibling comparisons and some parameter-level detail are the only notable gaps, but the schema and output schema carry much of the remaining context.

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 low at 29%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by linking 'preview token' and 'resolutions' to the post flow and emphasizing the file must be complete and unchanged. However, the description does not explain individual parameters like portfolioRef, workspaceRef, previewToken, or resolutions semantics; it relies largely on the schema's oneOf structure.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Preview or post a complete CSV or CSV or XLSX file of balanced manual adjustment journals for one portfolio.' This precisely identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings such as preview_accounting_rules or update_journal_entry_line by focusing on balanced manual adjustment journal imports.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Preview first; post only after reviewing every blocking issue, then resend the unchanged source with its preview token and any resolutions.' This clearly instructs the agent on sequencing and conditions for the post action, though it does not name alternative tools or when not to use this tool.

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