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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation and mentions scope, but does not state that it is read-only, whether team membership is required, what happens with an invalid team slug, or how results are ordered/limited.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The most important scoping distinction (personal vs. team) is presented immediately and clearly.

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 tool with two optional parameters and complete schema descriptions, this is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out behavioral details such as return format, sorting, and access requirements, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 coverage is 100%, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining the team parameter's semantics: omitting it selects the personal journal while providing a team slug selects that team's journal, which is not fully explicit in the schema itself.

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 tool clearly identifies its resource ('dones') and adds a scope distinction ('own journal or one of their teams'), which helps differentiate it from the sibling tools. However, the description is a noun phrase rather than a direct verb+resource statement, relying on the title to convey the 'list' action.

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 conveys the main usage choice: personal journal vs. a specific team. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over post_done or whoami, though the read-oriented nature of 'dones' makes that mostly inferable.

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