search_journal_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'search' implying read-only, but omits details like pagination, ordering, default behavior, or error handling. The schema hints at pagination (limit, offset, fetchAll) but these are not described in text.

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 very concise with a single sentence. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, particularly for parameters and behaviors. Still, it is well-front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested params, pagination support, no output schema), the description is far too minimal. It fails to explain return values, pagination behavior, or criteria structure, leaving the agent with inadequate context to use the tool correctly.

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 low (50% only on the top-level company parameter). The description does not explain the 'criteria' parameter format (array of what?) nor any other params (asc, desc, limit, etc.). It adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema structure.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches journal entries in QuickBooks Online matching given criteria. It uses a specific verb+resource pattern and distinguishes from other search entities by name, but doesn't elaborate on what criteria are supported beyond the generic phrase.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search for other entities). There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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