accounting_journal_entries_get_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the result contains detail rows with line-level account and amount information, but it does not disclose operational caveats such as pagination behavior or response shape, which are partly covered by the output schema.

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 with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the differentiation from the summary tool is stated efficiently in the second sentence.

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?

With full parameter schema coverage, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It identifies the line-level scope and names the relevant sibling, so no critical contextual information is missing.

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%: id, page, pageSize, and includeTotal each have descriptive text. The tool description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond indicating line-level detail, so the baseline score 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 tool retrieves journal-entry detail rows, which is a specific verb plus resource. It also explicitly contrasts itself with accounting_journal_entries_get_summary, making the distinction between line-level detail and header-level totals unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance: use this tool for line-level account and amount detail, and use accounting_journal_entries_get_summary for header-level totals. This directly tells an agent when this tool is appropriate versus the closest sibling.

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