Get journal entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about returning debit/credit items, which is useful but minimal. Without an output schema, the description could have mentioned the structure, but given the annotations, the baseline is acceptable.

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 concise sentence that effectively summarizes the tool's purpose without unnecessary fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Fetches one journal entry') and includes relevant detail (debit/credit items). No waste, but could be slightly more informative about usage context.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not explain what the debit/credit items format looks like or any potential edge cases. Since annotations cover safety, this is adequate but not rich. It could benefit from indicating that the journal entry ID must be a valid existing entry.

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% for the single parameter, which has a description in the schema ('Path parameter journalEntryId'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to the calibration, baseline is 3 when schema covers parameters fully, so this is appropriate.

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 it fetches one journal entry and mentions the included debit/credit items, which is a specific verb (fetches) and resource (journal entry). It distinguishes from siblings like list_journal_entries by implying a single entry retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so a slight deduction.

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 usage for retrieving a single journal entry, and the need for a journalEntryId is evident from required parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_journal_entries or other related tools. There is no exclusion guidance or context on when not to use it, so it's only implicitly clear.

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