list_deals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only list operation through '取得' (retrieve) and mentions filtering capabilities, but it does not disclose potential behaviors like pagination limits (though limit is in schema), ordering, or authentication requirements. This is a moderate gap for a read-only tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by concrete use cases. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a clear overview of purpose and intended use cases. It lacks explicit details about the return structure or default behaviors, but for a list retrieval tool with schema-covered parameters, it is sufficient to understand and invoke the tool correctly in most contexts.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it mentions filterable by '勘定科目名や期間' (account item name and period), which mirrors the schema fields. The other parameters (type, limit) are left to the schema, so no extra value is added.

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 clear action: '登録済みの取引（仕訳）一覧を取得する' (get a list of registered transactions), with a specific resource and scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning its use for monthly_summary breakdowns and duplicate checks, which makes its purpose unique.

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 explicit use cases: 'monthly_summaryの内訳確認や、仕訳の重複チェックに使う' (used for checking monthly_summary breakdowns and duplicate journal entries). This gives clear when-to-use guidance, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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