list_journal_entries

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or side effects. The schema implies pagination via 'page' and 'page_size', but the description adds no clarity. Score 2 reflects insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise at three words. While brevity can be positive, it sacrifices necessary context. The structure is minimal but not misleading. Score 3 reflects a balance between conciseness and under-specification.

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 lacks contextual completeness. There is an output schema that covers return values, but the description does not mention any prerequisites, common use cases, or limitations. Given the large set of sibling list tools, more context would help an agent decide. Score 2 indicates incomplete context.

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 0%, meaning the description does not explain any parameter meanings. The parameter names (e.g., 'created_on_or_after') are somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool description adds no value beyond what the schema provides. Score 2 indicates minimal semantic contribution.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'journal entries', which is clear at a basic level. However, it does not differentiate from the many other list tools, such as list_activities or list_invoices. A score of 3 reflects adequate but vague purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. A score of 2 indicates minimal to no usage guidance.

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