list_cashbook_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the return shape (page, last_page, total), which tells the agent the result is paginated — genuinely useful, but it omits page-size behavior, sorting, and the company-scoping default that affects which entries are returned.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no redundant wording. Brevity here is efficient rather than padded, though the second sentence devotes space to return fields while omitting more consequential parameter facts.

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?

For a five-parameter, two-required listing tool with no output schema and 20% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It never states the mandatory date range, the filtering options, or the default company scoping, leaving the agent to discover core calling requirements from the raw schema.

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 coverage is only 20% — only company_id carries a description — so the description bears most of the burden and largely fails it. The phrase 'incassi e pagamenti' loosely hints at the type enum (all/in/out), but date range format, payment_account_id filtering, and the required-vs-optional distinction are left entirely undocumented.

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 — listing cashbook entries ('movimento di prima nota') with the clarification that these are receipts and payments. It is clearly distinguishable from the singular sibling get_cashbook_entry, though it never explicitly contrasts with it or with report-style siblings like cashflow_forecast.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_cashbook_entry, cashflow_forecast, or the report tools, and no mention that date_from/date_to are mandatory. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name.

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