journal_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the list operation and filter options, omitting details like sorting, pagination, whether the account is required, and the read-only nature. This is minimal disclosure that adds little beyond the schema.

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, grammatically complete sentence with no filler. It is efficiently front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is perhaps too terse given the missing details about account and limit, though conciseness itself is well-executed.

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?

The description omits the required account parameter and the behavior of the limit parameter, which are critical for correct invocation. While the output schema exists and thus return values need not be described, the description still fails to give context on prerequisites or result ordering. It is not complete enough for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations.

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 must compensate. It clarifies tag and symbol as filters, but does not explain the required 'account' parameter or the semantics of 'limit' (e.g., most recent vs first N). The coverage is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 tool lists trade-journal entries and mentions optional tag/symbol filters. The resource 'trade-journal entries' distinguishes it from sibling list tools like watchlist_list and automation_list. The verb 'List' is specific and the scope is unambiguous.

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 the tool's purpose self-evident: use it to list trade-journal entries. There are no obvious sibling tools for exactly this task, so explicit alternatives are not needed. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention prerequisites like the required account.

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