pennylane_list_journals

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds light context (the journal type taxonomy), but says nothing about pagination behaviour despite cursor/limit parameters, nor about ordering guarantees.

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; the parenthetical examples earn their place by defining the domain vocabulary. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 annotations carry the safety profile, so the description's scope is reasonable. The only missing element an agent might want is routing guidance relative to sibling list/get tools.

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 the schema already documents sort, limit, cursor and type_filter comprehensively, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's 'filtres optionnels par type' merely restates what type_filter already conveys and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Liste tous les journaux comptables') and enumerates example journal categories (ventes, achats, banque, OD, paie), which removes ambiguity about what a 'journal' is. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like pennylane_get_journal or pennylane_create_journal, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It mentions that optional filtering by type exists, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus pennylane_get_journal (single journal) or pennylane_list_entries, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred 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.