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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reports days traded without entries, which is a behavioral trait beyond simple retrieval. It also implies the journal is the source for psychological context. It doesn't mention pagination or max 31-day enforcement beyond the description, but the date range limit is stated.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, why to use it, and an additional behavioral detail. Front-loaded with the resource and content, then usage guidance.

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 read-only retrieval tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It explains the content, the usage context, and a key behavioral nuance. It doesn't describe the return format, but no output schema exists and the description gives enough for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the max 31-day constraint and the inclusive date range context, which is useful but not extensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the trader's written journal for a date range, listing specific content types (plans, notes, lessons, self-assessments). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it is the written journal, not metrics or breakdowns.

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 explicitly instructs to read this before commenting on psychology or intent, and notes that numbers alone don't carry that context. It also explains the tool reports days traded without journal entries, helping the agent distinguish a missing record from a quiet week. This provides clear when-to-use guidance.

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