list_accounting_journals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the tool name in French with no additional behavioral details. It doesn't disclose the return format (e.g., list of journal codes and labels), any sorting/filtering behavior, or whether it is strictly a read-only operation beyond the implied 'list' action.

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 a single, short sentence that communicates the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple no-parameter tool and is front-loaded with the essential action and resource.

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 no-parameter list tool, the description is minimally adequate for selection and invocation. However, without an output schema, it doesn't specify what the response contains (e.g., journal codes, names, or additional metadata). The description could have added return-value context to be more complete, but for a simple listing operation, it suffices for basic usage.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool. The description adds no parameter-specific info because none exist.

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 'Lister les journaux comptables' (list accounting journals) and provides examples of journal types (Ventes, Achats, Banque, OD...), making the tool's specific purpose unmistakable even among many list-related siblings like list_accounting_accounts. It uses a specific verb and resource, fully distinguishing this tool from others.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. For example, it doesn't clarify whether this tool also covers general ledger entries or only journal master data.

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