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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the default ±31-day window, the hard 366-day cap, and the output date format. It does not discuss pagination or result-size limits.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: the purpose and scope come first, followed by defaults/limits and the output date format. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it still states the result date format as a convenience. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented 2-parameter schema, nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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%, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the ISO 8601 format, defaults and the 366-day constraint that the schema already specifies, adding only the summarized result date format (YYYY-MM-DD).

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("List daily notes") and scopes it to the authenticated user within a time window, so the agent can distinguish it from calendar tools like get_event or find_conflicts. It does not explicitly name its write counterpart save_note, so differentiation is by category rather than by direct sibling reference.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource and scope (fetching the user's own daily notes over a range), and the defaults/limits give practical context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no routing to alternatives such as search_events or save_note.

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