list_ledger_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a key behavioral trait: the v2 endpoint returns 422 when neither start_date nor end_date is supplied, which materially affects how an agent must call it. It does not cover auth requirements or the shape of returned entries, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then pagination mechanics, then the date constraint and the sibling pointer. No filler or repetition of schema text.

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 4-param, no-annotations, no-output-schema read tool, the definition covers purpose, pagination, the mandatory date constraint, and tool selection. Only the item-level return shape is left implicit, which is a minor gap for a list endpoint.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by stating the cross-parameter constraint (neither date → 422) and the cursor round-trip convention (previous response's nextCursor), which the per-field schema descriptions cannot express.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List journal/ledger entries') plus the API version, and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling get_daily_ledger. An agent can pick the right tool without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: paginate via nextCursor/cursor, optionally filter by date range, and it names the alternative tool (get_daily_ledger) with the exact condition that selects it (groupByEntry support, Unix-timestamp compat). Both the 'use this' and 'use that instead' paths are covered.

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