List general journal documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral nuance beyond the annotations, such as which state filter values are restricted to purchase invoices and receipts and how period ranges are expressed. This gives the agent a more accurate model of how the filter behaves.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then moves directly into filtering details in a single dense sentence. There is no filler, and every clause adds usable information for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Between the description and the fully documented schema, an agent has all call-time information: filter keys, value domains, period format, pagination controls, administration override, and exclusion behavior. The annotations cover the read-only, idempotent nature, so no critical safety or side-effect information is missing. The lack of an output schema is acceptable for a simple list endpoint where the return shape is predictable.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so every parameter including page, per_page, administration_id, exclude_new_general_journal_documents, and the full filter grammar is already documented structurally. The main description essentially restates the filter keys without introducing new parameter-level semantics, so it meets the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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: "List general journal documents" and immediately clarifies the resource as "manual journal entries," which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_general_documents and get_general_journal_document. There is no ambiguity about what operation this tool performs.

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 provides concrete usage guidance by explaining that results are narrowed with a `filter`, enumerating the valid filter keys and value domains, and noting that certain state values only apply to purchase invoices and receipts. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying when to prefer this over get_general_journal_document, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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