get_accounting_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the return fields but does not mention side effects, permissions, scope (e.g., all entries), or limitations like pagination. The read-only nature is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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 sentence plus a bullet-like list of return fields. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words, though it could be more structured with separate sections.

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 no output schema, the description provides the return fields, which is helpful. However, it omits details about whether it returns a list or single entry, ordering, or any constraints. It is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but not fully comprehensive.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value for parameters; it mentions the document but does not elaborate on register_name or provide context beyond the schema. The list of return fields is about output, not input parameters.

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 the tool retrieves accounting entries for a document and lists the returned fields (Debit, Credit, amount, etc.). The name aligns with the description, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_document_movements or get_register_records by specifying 'accounting entries'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_document_movements or get_register_records. It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios to avoid, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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