search_journal_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It provides a useful domain example that reveals the expected filter syntax and scope, but it does not disclose return format, default limit behavior, or whether the search returns results when domain is null. This is moderate transparency for a read-oriented search tool.

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 two sentences and directly to the point. It includes a compact, illustrative example that earns its place by clarifying domain syntax without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core search scope and provides an example. However, it omits usage context, limit semantics, and return output details, making it only minimally complete.

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%, and the description adds meaning only for the 'domain' parameter via the concrete example. The 'limit' parameter is not explained, leaving a gap. The example is helpful but only partially compensates for the complete lack of parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 tool as searching journal entries, invoices, and bills across any move_type, giving a clear verb and resource. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic search tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_invoices.

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 such as search_invoices or odoo_search_read. The example domain shows how to query, but there is no explicit context for choosing this tool over siblings.

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