myob_journal_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies read-only, but it doesn't explicitly state safety, mention pagination via the 'top' parameter, or clarify how filters work. It lacks details on response behavior or any rate limits, leaving the agent with limited understanding.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While minimal, it earns its place by stating exactly what the tool does, aligning with conciseness standards.

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 presence of an output schema and 3 optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the semantics of top, filter, or business_id, nor does it clarify the scope of 'general journal records' in the broader context of sibling tools. The one-liner is insufficient for an agent to use it effectively.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the three parameters (top, filter, business_id). The defaults and types are visible in the schema, but their meaning and usage are entirely unexplained, so the agent cannot make informed parameter choices.

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 'List general journal records.' clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (general journal records). It distinguishes from siblings like account_list or customer_list, though it doesn't elaborate on what constitutes a 'general journal record' or how it differs from other list tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without context on selecting it among the many sibling list tools.

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