Format reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral-disclosure burden. It implies a read-only reference return and lists the content categories, but it does not explicitly confirm that the operation has no side effects or describe the response structure.

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 two sentences with no wasted language. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the language option follows as a secondary usage detail.

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 help/reference tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly. The main remaining gap is the absence of an explicit read-only/no-side-effect statement.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter is already fully documented with an enum. The description reinforces that language: zh selects Chinese, but it adds little beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific verb and resource: it returns the complete ledger JSON format, axis rules, and display behavior. That is more specific than the tool title or name alone. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this reference tool from the sibling tools show and open.

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 explains how to request Chinese output but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of show or open. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria.

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