get_journal_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, or error handling on missing IDs. The description only states the basic operation.

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, concise sentence with no filler words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful context like parameter details.

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 getter tool, the description adequately conveys the core function, but lacks details on response structure, error behavior, or prerequisites. Given no output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 50% (only 'company' has a description). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'by Id' but does not specify the ID format or source. The parameter descriptions themselves are insufficient.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'journal entry', the method 'by Id', and the source 'QuickBooks Online'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_journal_entries and create_journal_entry.

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?

Usage is implied (retrieve a specific journal entry by ID), but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_journal_entries for multiple entries, other get_* tools). No exclusions or prerequisites provided.

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