wafeq_manual_journals_retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the GET endpoint and the 'single' scope, but largely repeats what the annotations and title already convey. It does not contradict 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 short and front-loaded with the READ-ONLY badge and endpoint, which is good. However, 'Retrieve manual journal' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single manual journal' are essentially redundant, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 simple single-resource retrieval with a one-parameter schema and strong read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what is retrieved and via which endpoint, though it could have added a bit more detail about the response or the id parameter.

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%, so the description needed to explain the meaning or format of 'id'. It only shows the URL path placeholder {id}, leaving the agent to infer that id is the manual journal's identifier. No additional semantics such as ID type, format, or source are provided.

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 the specific verb 'retrieve' with the resource 'manual journal' and explicitly says 'single manual journal', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like manual_journals_list, manual_journals_create, and manual_journals_update. The HTTP endpoint GET /manual-journals/{id}/ reinforces the exact scope.

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 makes clear that this tool is for retrieving one manual journal by ID, which is sufficient context for the common case. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but 'single manual journal' implies the contrast with list/create/update operations.

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