list_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the journal is append-only, entries are ordered newest first, and that pagination is supported via before_seq. This gives the agent critical behavioral context without any safety hints.

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?

Two sentences, perfectly sized. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second provides crucial usage guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 covers usage, ordering, and pagination well. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what fields each journal entry contains (beyond implying seq). This is a minor gap given the simplicity of the tool and the strong guidance provided.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining how before_seq is used (from the previous page) and why it matters (append-only, long journal), going beyond the schema's basic type and constraint info.

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 lists journal entries with specific ordering (newest first) and pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_entry, get_balance, and list_accounts, which serve different resources or actions.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use pagination ('when walking further back'), and explicitly advises against asking for everything at once. Also explains the append-only nature that justifies this usage pattern.

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