freee_get_manual_journals

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

No annotations provided, so description takes full burden. It mentions the max 500 records per page (key constraint) and lists filterable fields. Lacks detail on pagination behavior or response format, but is sufficient for basic 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and supported filters, second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words, information is front-loaded.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, pagination limit, and alternatives. Missing details on error handling or response structure, but sufficient for selecting and using the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description enumerates filter types (date range, entry side, etc.) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Get list of manual journal entries' with the Japanese equivalent, indicating a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'freee_get_manual_journal' (singular) by being the list version, and contrasts with aggregated report APIs.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use this tool (reviewing individual entries) and when to prefer alternatives (aggregated totals: profit_loss, trial_balance). No ambiguity.

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