get_journal

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

The description adds that it includes 'line items', but annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. No additional behavioral details (e.g., error handling, performance) are provided beyond what annotations cover.

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 two terse sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and value. No redundant or unnecessary content; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers the key return content (line items). Minor gap: no mention of permissions or idempotency, but annotations cover safety.

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%, with organization_id described as using an env var and journal_id as a simple ID. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the 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 'Get detailed information about a specific journal entry' with 'Returns full journal details including all line items.' This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from create, update, delete, and list journal tools.

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 implies usage for retrieving details by ID but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like list_journals or when not to use. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided.

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