get_gl_transactions_detailed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behaviors: the richer fields returned, the ability to fetch all accounts via an empty code, and the intended use case. While it does not mention pagination, errors, or explicit read-only status, the verb 'Retrieve' and the field list convey a safe query operation sufficiently for an agent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then the distinctive richer fields, then a concrete use case. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place. It is concise yet 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 moderate complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies required date range, optional account filter, and the specific rich fields, making the tool invocable. Minor gaps remain around return formatting and pagination, but the stated use case covers the likely agent need.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it repeats the 'leave empty for all accounts' guidance already present on glAccountCode and does not clarify startDate, endDate, or financialMode semantics. It adds minor context by suggesting which GL accounts (depreciation, salary) might be relevant.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve detailed transaction data for a GL account within a date range.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling get_transactions by listing the richer fields returned, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool uniquely provides.

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 names the alternative tool get_transactions and clarifies when to prefer this one ('Use this to find the last period in which a depreciation or salary booking was made'). It also gives a practical filter instruction ('Leave glAccountCode empty to fetch all accounts'), providing clear context for when to use the tool.

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