list_journal_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations, such as pagination, filtering constraints, or return format. It is not contradictory, but contributes nothing.

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 word, which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is not front-loaded with key details because there are no details at all.

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?

Despite a detailed schema and annotations, the description gives no indication of what journal entries are, what the tool returns, or how it relates to similar tools like list_manual_entries. With no output schema, the description must fill gaps, and it fails completely.

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% for all five parameters, providing meaningful descriptions for each. The description adds no value, but per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 is simply 'Journal', which does not state the action or resource. It is not a verb phrase like 'list journal entries' and provides no differentiation from numerous sibling list tools. The tool name itself is more informative.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with zero orientation.

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