holded_list_daily_ledger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool retrieves entries and can filter them; it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, whether pagination exists, or any other runtime behavior. The description is not misleading, but it is thin on behavioral detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose first and then the optional filtering capability. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 list-type tool with three optional parameters, the description is reasonably complete: it states what is returned and what filters are available. However, with no output schema and no annotations, details such as response format, pagination, and whether the operation is read-only are left unspecified.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a high-level note about filtering by date range and account number, but it does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already includes.

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 operation ('Obtiene los asientos del libro diario de Holded') and the resource, making it distinct from the sibling tools that target accounts, documents, contacts, or treasury items. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart from the other listed 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 used to retrieve daily ledger entries and mentions optional filters, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The intended use case is understandable but not directly stated as a recommendation.

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