list_manual_journals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms a read/list operation and mentions Bigcapital filters, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering defaults, response shape, or any side-effect or safety details.

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 sentence with no filler, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified for a six-parameter tool, and the brevity comes at the cost of needed usage and parameter guidance.

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?

The description leaves too much unstated: it does not explain how Bigcapital list filters map to the parameters, what output to expect, or when this tool should be chosen over get_manual_journal. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is not enough contextual information.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 33%, four of six parameters (viewSlug, sortOrder, filterRoles, customViewId) remain undocumented in both the schema and the description. The phrase 'using Bigcapital list filters' is too generic to add meaningful semantic detail for these parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'manual journals', so an agent can tell this is a listing operation for manual journals. It is distinguishable from create/update/publish siblings by its verb, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_manual_journal for single-record retrieval.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_manual_journal, and does not state any exclusions or conditions. The only usage hint is the generic phrase 'using Bigcapital list filters', which does not explain when list filters should be applied or when to prefer another endpoint.

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