pennylane_list_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a domain fact (entries contain balanced debit=credit lines), which is contextual but not operationally actionable; pagination and default limits live in the schema, not the prose.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core action and filter scope are front-loaded. The second sentence about balanced lines is arguably the least load-bearing part but still compact.

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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description needn't explain returns; six optional params are fully documented in the schema. However, it omits routing guidance relative to the many sibling entry/entry-line tools, leaving a gap for a read-list tool in a crowded namespace.

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% (sort, limit, cursor, date_from/to, journal_id all documented), so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description's mention of journal and period filters loosely maps to journal_id and the date range but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 specific verb ('Liste') and resource ('écritures comptables / pièces') and names the filter dimensions (journal, période). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like pennylane_get_entry or pennylane_list_entry_lines, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 indication of when to use this versus pennylane_get_entry (single entry), pennylane_list_entry_lines, or pennylane_list_all_entry_lines. Listing semantics are implied by the verb, but there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance.

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