siigo_get_journals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get list' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, if there are rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., pagination details beyond the parameters). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or response format, which are crucial for a tool with parameters. While concise, it fails to provide sufficient context for effective use by an AI agent.

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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'page' and 'page_size'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a list retrieval, which is already evident from the tool name and schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('list of accounting journals from Siigo'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'siigo_get_journal' (singular) by specifying it retrieves a list, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'siigo_get_customers' or 'siigo_get_products'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as authentication or access rights, or differentiate it from similar list-retrieval tools in the sibling set, like 'siigo_get_journal' for a single journal or other 'get_' tools for different resources.

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