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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the search scope, the kind of text matched, and the response shape and ordering ('dated snippets, newest first'). Minor details like case-sensitivity and empty-result behavior are unstated, but this is acceptable for a simple read-oriented search.

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 carry all essential information: purpose, scope, example use, sibling contrast, and return ordering. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, why to use it, which sibling to avoid, and what the results look like. It omits only explicit limit/default behavior and edge-case handling, which are not essential to invoke the tool 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?

The schema documents 'query' with an example but leaves 'limit' without semantic description, so coverage is only partial. The description clarifies that the query targets written journal text, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter's behavior or default. This is adequate but leaves one parameter underspecified.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('journal days whose written text mentions something'), and clearly defines the cross-history scope. It also enumerates content categories (plans, reflections, focus goals, risk notes), making it readily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_journal.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: for recurring-behaviour questions such as 'when do I mention overtrading?'. It also names the alternative to avoid ('instead of walking month by month with get_journal'), giving clear routing guidance.

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