bokio_account_ledger

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses important behavior: results are ordered by date, series, and number; a running balance is included; annulled verifications are kept but flagged cancelled; and debit/credit sign conventions are specified. These details materially affect interpretation of the result.

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 definition is three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the sibling distinction and result-sign convention. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition or filler.

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?

Given the moderate complexity, complete schema descriptions, existing output schema, and annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers purpose, alternative routing, result ordering, cancellation handling, and sign convention without needing to explain return columns that the output schema already defines.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description restates the account and date-range meaning but adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 (list), resource (postings on one account), and scope (between two dates with a running balance). It also names bokio_list_journal_entries as the sibling that lists whole verifications instead, so an agent can distinguish the tool without opening schemas.

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: per-account postings over a date range. It explicitly contrasts with bokio_list_journal_entries, which lists whole verifications, giving the agent a direct alternative-selection rule.

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