search_journal_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that posted entries are immutable, which matters for any downstream mutation, but omits whether the tool is strictly read-only, its pagination defaults/limits, and any auth requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the filter axes, then the immutability note. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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?

For a list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, and a key behavioral constraint. It is nearly complete, though return shape and pagination behavior are left entirely to the schema.

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 every parameter (dateTo, dateFrom, posted, source, search, page, pageSize) is already documented in the schema. The description restates the filter axes and echoes a few enum values but adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) plus resource (journal entries) and system scope (KikoBooks general ledger), and lists the filter dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from get_journal_entry or create_journal_entry, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'List ... Filter by ...' framing, which tells an agent this is a query tool. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus get_journal_entry for a single entry, or versus the reporting tools like get_trial_balance, and offers no exclusions.

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