pennylane_list_entry_lines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, fully covering the safety profile, and an output schema exists. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on pagination behavior, result size, or ordering, so it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple read tool. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to carry the routing and pagination context an agent would benefit from.

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 annotations covering safety, a 100%-documented schema, and an output schema handling return values, the description is only marginally short of complete. The remaining gap is selection guidance against list_all_entry_lines/get_entry_line, which the description never addresses.

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 ledger_entry_id, limit and cursor are all documented in the schema itself. The phrase 'd'une pièce comptable spécifique' reinforces that ledger_entry_id is the scoping selector but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb (Liste) and resource (lignes d'écriture) plus a scope qualifier ('d'une pièce comptable spécifique'), so an agent understands it returns lines belonging to one ledger entry. It does not name the close sibling pennylane_list_all_entry_lines, so no explicit differentiation is offered.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. The 'specific entry' phrasing implies scoping, but it never states the alternative (list_all_entry_lines for all lines, get_entry_line for a single line) or any prerequisite, so the agent must infer routing 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.