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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further by explaining that the entry cannot be edited or deleted via this server and must be corrected in SmartAccounts. It also discloses the no-retry safety rule, the specific return fields (id, number, amount), and concrete rate limits (60/min, 1000/24h), all of which are absent from annotations.

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 dense, front-loaded paragraph that starts with the core action and then layers on constraints, consequences, and rate limits. Every sentence carries actionable information for a destructive, non-idempotent operation, with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the returned fields (id, number, amount) and covers failure modes, correction workflow, rate limits, and prerequisite account lookup. Nothing critical for an agent to invoke this create tool safely appears to be missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including row-level fields. The description adds only minor semantic context (EUR currency and the debit-credit balancing rule), both of which are already present in the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Post a manual general ledger entry (journal entry, general/entries:add) in EUR.' It clarifies this is a manual accounting record, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_sales_invoice or create_payment, and it states the exact API action.

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 clear operational context: account codes must come from smartaccounts_list_accounts, debits must equal credits, and the call fails during a locked period. It does not explicitly name which sibling creation tool to use for other transaction types, but the 'manual general ledger entry' framing and the list_accounts prerequisite provide strong guidance.

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