wafeq_account_ledger

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

The annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: the 92-day window limit for date resolution, the fallback for wider ranges returning rows without `date`, the request-cost model, and the `requests_made` result field. There is no contradiction with the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and the key scoping rule, then provides constraints and cost behavior. Every sentence carries operational value, and the emoji/type line is a compact readable marker rather than filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description clarifies what rows contain (`date` vs `created_ts`), what constraints apply, what the result reports (`requests_made`), and when to prefer this tool over the raw alternative. Combined with the full schema coverage and annotations, the agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents all 12 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-level meaning by requiring both dates and stating the 92-day constraint for date resolution, plus the behavior when the window is wider. It does not repeat every schema field but adds value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('journal line items') and highlights the distinguishing trait: the real transaction date is attached as `date`. It also contrasts itself with the raw journal-line-items tool by warning about `created_ts`, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this instead of the raw journal-line-items tool whenever the date matters', names the alternative, and gives concrete use cases such as tracing an account's history, reconciling a period, or explaining a balance. It also warns not to report `created_ts` as the transaction date.

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