pennylane_list_all_entry_lines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds the filter dimensions but nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or how the 'all vs scoped' retrieval differs from the sibling — so it adds only marginal behavioral context.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The usage clause is a slight add-on but still earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and all 7 optional params are covered by the schema. The one remaining gap is failure to disambiguate from the pennylane_list_entry_lines sibling, but otherwise the definition is sufficient for a low-complexity list tool.

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 100%, so each parameter (sort, limit, cursor, date_from/to, journal_id, ledger_account_id) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the journal/account/period filter groups, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a clear verb (Liste) and resource (lignes d'écriture comptable) plus the filter dimensions, so an agent knows this is a filtered bulk-listing tool. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling pennylane_list_entry_lines, leaving the 'all vs scoped' boundary ambiguous.

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 second sentence ('Utile pour analyser les mouvements d'un compte ou d'un journal sur une période') gives an implied use context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the competing siblings list_entry_lines, get_entry_line, or list_entries.

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