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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: result ordering (newest first), a per-call cost of $0.05, and an API-key auth requirement — none of which are inferable from structured fields.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: resource and ordering come first, then access modes, then row shape, then cost/auth. The semicolon-chained fragments are dense but every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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 row-field list is a convenience rather than a necessity, and all six parameters are optional so no required-input guidance is needed. Access modes, search semantics, paging, cost and auth are all covered, leaving only edge cases like conflicting date/from-to combinations unaddressed.

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%, so the schema already documents formats and bounds for every parameter; that sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only light relational meaning (date as a single-day alternative to from/to, offset as paging), but does not clarify precedence if both date and from/to are supplied.

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?

Names a specific resource (the user's Day Notes) and states retrieval scope and ordering (newest first). It is clearly a read operation and implicitly the counterpart to save_day_note, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings such as get_day_scores or save_day_note.

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?

Gives clear selection rules for its own parameters: 'date for one day, or from/to' for a range, 'query matches the text' for searching, 'limit and offset page' for paging. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming an alternative tool for adjacent needs.

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