Get GL Entry Audit Log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds valuable context about the content of the audit trail (state transitions, actors, timestamps) and provides an example, going beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a relevant example. No superfluous content. Spanish translation adds little value but does not harm. Front-loaded with key information.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, the description is complete. Annotations cover safety, output schema exists, and the description adequately describes the return value (audit trail).

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?

Only one parameter (entryId) with full schema coverage (100%). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's description; the example is helpful but not essential. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('full audit trail for a General Ledger entry'). Specifies exact data returned (state transitions, actors, timestamps) and provides an example. Distinct from sibling tools like frihet_gl_entry_approve.

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?

Explicitly directs use for 'investigate approval history or compliance audits.' No exclusions or alternatives are needed given the tool's uniqueness; the context is clear.

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