Get 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. The description adds no behavioral disclosure beyond that—no mention of ordering, pagination, date inclusivity, or any hidden side effects. 'Get' simply echoes the read-only nature already captured by annotations.

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 short and front-loaded: the resource is named immediately and the double-entry clarification adds value without fluff. Slight redundancy exists with the title ('Get Journal Entries' vs 'Get General Ledger journal entries'), but the extra context 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 simple read-only tool, the schema and annotations cover basic safety and parameters. However, the description lacks any usage context and does not explain what a returned journal entry looks like or how date filtering behaves, making it minimally adequate but not complete.

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 limit, to_date, and from_date are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema coverage baseline of 3.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('General Ledger journal entries'), and adds a clarifying domain cue ('Double-entry accounting records'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like get_transactions, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_transactions, get_trial_balance, or get_profit_and_loss. The description states only what the tool returns, not the conditions or use cases that should trigger selection.

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