mfc_ca_getJournals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a read-style list retrieval and an important operational prerequisite (a date filter is mandatory), but it does not describe pagination behavior, response shape (and no output schema exists), or validation/error behavior. Partial transparency that is acceptable for a simple read tool but not comprehensive.

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?

Two compact clauses: the purpose comes first, then the critical precondition. There is zero filler and every word earns its place, with the action front-loaded ahead of the constraint.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this definition is thin. It omits date format expectations, pagination semantics, and the meaning of filters such as is_realized and transaction_ids, and it provides no return-value guidance. An agent would need to guess or probe to invoke this tool correctly beyond the one date constraint.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 14% (only per_page carries a description, '最大10000'), the description must compensate. It adds the key relational requirement for start_date and end_date that the schema omits, but it leaves account_id, is_realized, transaction_ids, page, and per_page's broader semantics unexplained, and no date format is specified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '仕訳一覧を取得します' (retrieves the journal list). It is clear about what the tool does, and the word '一覧' (list) hints at the distinction from mfc_ca_getJournalById, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other siblings such as mfc_ca_getTransactions.

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 given on when to choose this tool over alternatives like getJournalById or getTransactions. The one genuinely useful usage signal is the precondition 'start_date または end_date のいずれかが必要' (either start_date or end_date is required), which tells the agent what makes a valid call, but there are no exclusions or sibling routing cues.

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