accounting_journal_entries_list

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 fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are paginated ('one requested page') and header-level rather than full entries. No contradictions with annotations.

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 of roughly 50 words, with the core action front-loaded and the usage routing in the second sentence. Every clause earns its place — there is no fluff, tautology, or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 30-parameter, zero-required listing tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, pagination behavior, and the follow-up workflow. Return values are covered by the output schema and parameters by the schema (87% coverage), so the only minor gap is the absence of guidance on typical filter combinations — not essential for correct invocation.

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 87%, so the 30 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds a high-level grouping of filter categories (IDs, numbers, sync status, posted dates, created/modified timestamps) that maps to schema fields, but it does not add syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List one requested page of journal-entry headers'), names the filter dimensions (IDs, numbers, sync status, posted dates, created/modified timestamps), and explicitly notes it returns headers only. This differentiates it from the get_summary and get_details siblings without needing to open their schemas.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to discover entry IDs') and routes to the two relevant alternatives with their selection conditions — accounting_journal_entries_get_summary for summary rows and accounting_journal_entries_get_details for line-level rows. An agent gets a clear decision path with no inference required.

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