Find Missing Documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the specific filtering behavior (missing base documents) but does not explain what 'base documents' are, the return format, or any side effects. With strong annotations, the description adds moderate behavioral context.

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 that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place with no redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 optional params, no output schema), the description should clarify the return value (e.g., a list of IDs or full records). It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect from the tool. This is a significant gap.

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?

Both parameters (date_from, date_to) are fully described in the schema with format YYYY-MM-DD, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any further details about their usage or constraints, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'find' and specifies the resource types (journals, transactions, invoices) and the condition (without attached base documents). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_journals or list_transactions, which simply list all records.

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 is clear about what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., listing all journals and checking manually). Usage context is implied but not stated, making it minimally adequate.

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