get_manual_journal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool 'gets' a manual journal, without mentioning return shape, error behavior, read-only guarantees, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a tool that is not backed by annotations.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the lookup key. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's function.

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?

Given that this is a simple single-parameter read-only lookup, the description conveys the essential information: retrieve the manual journal that matches the supplied ID. It lacks an output schema and annotations, but for sucha straightforward getter, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, 'id', with no description coverage, but the description's 'by ID' does link that parameter to the intended resource. It does not explain the meaning of the identifier beyond that or why the numeric constraint (exclusiveMinimum: 0) exists, so compensation for the schema's lack of descriptions is only partial.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('manual journal'), and identifies the lookup key ('by ID'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It is also clearly distinct from siblings like list_manual_journals, create_manual_journal, and publish_manual_journal.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the appropriate condition for use: you have a manual journal identifier and need a single record. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_manual_journals, and it gives no exclusions or adjacent usage guidance. The guidance is present but implicit rather than explicit.

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