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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: fallback to the next note when none has gone out today, empty results on quiet days are normal, and items come dated with links. This is exactly the kind of expectation-setting the structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the return shape, then the edge cases and scope limit. Every sentence carries distinct information (content, fallback behavior, empty-result norm, no live research) with no repetition.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully carries the remainder: what fields come back and how empty/no-note states behave. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter claims are made that could mislead.

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 resource (today's note / accounts in it) and its contents: what was found, what it means, who to reach, and time available. The closing scope note ('saved records only, no new research') separates it from research/request tools among the siblings.

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 explicit trigger phrasing ('what should I look at today?', 'who is worth a call?') and a clear exclusion (saved records only, no new research). It does not name a specific sibling alternative for the cases where it is the wrong tool, so routing to list_accounts/prioritize_accounts is left to inference.

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