freee_get_manual_journal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does (retrieves details) without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 is concise and to the point, effectively communicating the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing key features) without adding length.

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?

The description provides a high-level overview of the return value (full details with line items), but without an output schema, more detail on the response structure would be helpful for an AI agent to use the tool correctly. It is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (companyId optional with default, manualJournalId required). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only confirming that the tool returns line item details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (get), the resource (manual journal), and the scope (specific entry with full details including all debit/credit line items). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like freee_get_manual_journals (list) and freee_create_manual_journal (create).

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 implies the tool is for retrieving details of a single manual journal, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., freee_get_manual_journals for listing) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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