journal_entry__validate_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the validation checks but does not describe side effects, error behavior, permissions, or rate limits. The agent is left guessing about the output format or what happens when validation fails.

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 sentence that conveys the essential information about the tool's purpose and input format. It is highly concise with no unnecessary words.

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 validation tool, the description covers the core logic but omits the return value or response format. Since there is no output schema, the agent lacks full understanding of what the tool returns or how to interpret the result.

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?

The schema has 100% required parameter 'lines' with no description. The description compensates by detailing the expected structure: a list of dicts with keys 'account' (str), 'dr' (float), 'cr' (float). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool validates journal entry lines by checking that debits equal credits and no line has both debit and credit. It specifies the input format and the validation rules, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'pro_rate_accrual' and 'reversal'.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the other journal entry tools. It lacks context for when validation is needed or prerequisites.

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