fiken_list_journal_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes that amounts are in cents, which is a helpful output format detail, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, read-only nature, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a list tool with multiple parameters.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that clearly state the purpose and one key behavioral detail. No unnecessary words, earning its place.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not cover pagination, date filter usage, or return value structure, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer.

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 coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline for parameter semantics. The description does not add any information beyond the schema; it does not explain how to combine date filters or the significance of the companySlug parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'journal entries for a company', distinguishing it from sibling tools like fiken_get_journal_entry. The additional note about amounts being in cents provides a specific detail.

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 listing journal entries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives such as fiken_get_journal_entry or fiken_list_journal_entry_attachments. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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