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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavior beyond annotations by specifying the two output modes (plain text vs raw JSON with HTML and metadata) and the default. This gives the agent a clear expectation of what the tool returns without needing to guess.

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 with no filler. The main action and output modes are front-loaded, followed by routing guidance. Every clause 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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the essential return format (plain text or raw JSON) and the parameter behavior. It also provides pointers to sibling tools for ID discovery and page-level retrieval, making it self-sufficient for an agent to call correctly.

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 covers both parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds value by explaining the formatAsText parameter's meaning and default ('Default true: pages as plain text (HTML stripped). false = raw JSON with HTML content and page metadata.'). This enriches the schema description, so it's more than just a baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (get), resource (journal entry), and scope (all its pages) and differentiates between two output formats. It names sibling tools (journal-list, journal-search, journal-page-get) that serve different purposes, so an agent can clearly distinguish it.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use journal-list or journal-search to find journal IDs; for one page of a long journal use journal-page-get.' This provides clear routing and exclusions.

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