mfc_ca_getJournalById

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, but it only states that one journal entry is retrieved. It does not mention error behavior, not-found handling, response format, or any read-only guarantees, leaving important operational behavior undisclosed.

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, clear sentence with no filler or repeated information. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID tool and front-loads the core action.

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?

For a one-parameter retrieve operation with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would be more complete if it acknowledged behavior such as what happens when the ID is not found or whether the response is the full journal object.

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 the schema already documents the 'id' parameter as a URL-encoded journal ID, which meets the baseline of 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('取得します') and resource ('仕訳' / journal entry), and the tool name adds the by-ID scope. It is distinguishable from sibling mfc_ca_getJournals by the '1件' (one item) focus, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the list variant.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as mfc_ca_getJournals or other journal-related tools. The intended use case is only implied by the name and the one-line description, with no exclusions or conditions provided.

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