wafeq_journal_line_items_retrieve

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a valuable non-obvious behavioral warning: the record carries created_ts (write time), not a transaction date, and the transaction date lives on the parent journal via the journal field. This goes beyond the annotations and prevents a likely misuse.

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 compact, scannable, and front-loaded with the READ-ONLY label, endpoint, and a clearly separated critical warning. It loses a point because 'Retrieve journal line item' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single journal line item' are essentially redundant.

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 one-parameter read-only retrieval, the description gives the endpoint, scope, and a crucial caveat about date semantics. It does not describe the response shape or explicitly route to the list sibling, but the essential information needed to call it correctly is present.

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 0%, and the description only echoes the id in the URL path without explaining its format, origin, or constraints. The parameter is simple and self-evident from the schema, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 action and resource: 'Retrieve journal line item' with the endpoint 'GET /journal-line-items/{id}/'. It explicitly says 'single journal line item', which distinguishes it from the list sibling and other line-item retrieve tools.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving one journal line item by id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, mention the list sibling, or provide any exclusion guidance. Usage is inferable but not directly instructed.

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