list-manual-journals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals pagination behavior (10 items per page, need to ask for next page) and that it presents a 'complete overview' with details. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when no journals exist. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 verbose and contains implementation instructions ('Ask the user...') that don't belong in a tool description. It repeats information about parameters and pagination multiple times. While it attempts to be helpful, it lacks front-loading of essential information and includes procedural guidance that should be handled by the agent's prompting strategy rather than tool documentation.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'manual journal' is in Xero context, what details are included in the response, error scenarios, or authentication requirements. The procedural instructions about asking users don't compensate for missing contextual information about the tool's behavior and output.

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 all three parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the date format ('YYYY-MM-DD' implied) and explaining that parameters are optional for filtering specific journals. However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema descriptions already state about each parameter's purpose.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all manual journals from Xero' and 'retrieve a specific journal' with filtering capabilities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create-manual-journal' and 'update-manual-journal' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list-invoices', 'list-contacts') beyond the resource type.

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 provides implied usage guidance by mentioning optional parameters for filtering and pagination, and suggests asking the user about scope before running. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites, or comparisons with alternatives. No guidance is given on when to use this versus other list tools or when manual journal listing is appropriate.

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