ofw_list_journal_entries

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of return-shape disclosure and does so richly: it explains that the response leads with `hasMore` and `nextStart`, that `nextStart` is null when exhausted, and that a truncated response still signals whether more remain. This is substantial behavioral context beyond what the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations provide.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by paging mechanics and then the caution about not asserting counts from one page. Three sentences, each carrying distinct information, though the paging-state exposition is somewhat dense for a two-parameter list tool.

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 paged list tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: pagination mechanism and the return envelope (hasMore/nextStart). It stops short of describing the journal entry fields themselves, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 `start` (1-based, continue via `nextStart`) and `max` (default 10). The description only restates that paging is offset-based and 1-based, adding no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List OurFamilyWizard journal entries.' This clearly separates it from the write-side sibling ofw_create_journal_entry and from other list tools (messages, events, expenses) by its resource noun. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, which keeps it off a 5.

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 tells the agent how to continue paging and warns against stating counts or absence from a single page, which is genuine usage guidance about interpreting results. However, it never says when to choose this list tool over related ones or states prerequisites, so the routing guidance is only implied by the verb/resource.

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