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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningfully: OAuth sign-in requirement, newest-first ordering, keyset pagination via cursor/nextCursor, and the non-obvious drop-out behavior when filtering day notes by symbol. It stops short of return-format detail or rate limits, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded — the stream/kinds structure comes first, then filters, then pagination, then auth. Every sentence carries information (probably more than a reader wants in one block), with no filler or 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 output schema, the description compensates by describing the return shape (a single stream split by kind, with ids for follow-up tools) and the auth prerequisite. Pagination and filter semantics are covered. Only minor gaps remain, such as default ordering fields or error behavior on unknown ids.

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 88% (baseline 3), and the description adds real semantic value beyond the schema: `symbol` only matches trade notes and causes day notes to be excluded, and the cursor must reuse identical arguments. This is behavioral meaning the schema does not convey.

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 (Search) and resource (journal notes feed) and immediately disambiguates the two kinds it returns — `notes` (day notes) and `tradeNotes` — with the sibling tools used to edit each. An agent can distinguish this from journal_list_trades or journal_get_day without opening any schema.

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 actionable context: 'Omit every filter for the latest notes', and explains that the symbol filter applies only to trade notes while day notes 'drop out'. It does not explicitly name a competing sibling (e.g. journal_list_trades) as the alternative when filtering by trade rather than note, so routing guidance is strong but not complete.

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