Get general journal document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the relevant behavioral context that the response includes debit and credit entries, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction or misleading behavior is present.

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?

A single sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the main action and the key return content, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 getter, the description is adequate: it states the purpose, the required id, and the returned entries. It does not mention error cases or how to discover the id from a list tool, but these are minor for a tool with strong annotations.

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 only 50%, with administration_id documented but general_journal_document_id not. The description's 'by id' adds little to the required parameter beyond its self-explanatory name, so it does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 retrieves one general journal document by id and includes its debit and credit entries. This distinguishes it from list_general_journal_documents and get_general_document without requiring the agent to open any schema.

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 implies usage when a single general journal document id is available, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention that ids can be obtained from list_general_journal_documents. No exclusions or alternatives are given, leaving usage somewhat inferred.

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