List journal entries

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning paging and filtering capabilities, but does not disclose response format, pagination behavior (e.g., how to navigate pages), or any rate limits. It adds some value beyond annotations but remains shallow.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and mentions the main capabilities. No filler or redundancy; every word 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 read-only list operation with a well-documented schema and annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the key features (paging, filtering, tagId) but omits any mention of the response structure or how pagination is handled beyond the page/pageSize parameters, which are already in the schema. The absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap, but not critical for invocation.

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%—every parameter (page, query, tagId, pageSize) has a description. The tool description simply paraphrases these ('paging, free-text filter and optional tagId') without adding deeper meaning, such as default values, relationships between parameters, or expected query syntax. It adheres to the baseline but adds no extra insight.

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 journal entries (verifikationer) and mentions key capabilities (paging, free-text filter, tagId). It distinguishes from sibling get_* tools by the verb 'list', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from other list tools like bokio_list_invoices. The purpose 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 implies usage for listing journal entries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bokio_get_journal_entry for a single entry). There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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