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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value beyond annotations: it states the 8000-char content cap, the empty/missing-note return behavior, and that summary/intelligence may be null. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only note fetch that is minor.

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-loads the action plus default, then the return fields, then the edge case, then alternative routing. Every sentence earns its place and the size is proportionate to a tool with no output schema.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return shape and does so field-by-field, including nullable fields and the empty-result case. Nothing an agent needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully documents both date (format, default) and workspace_id (UUID or name, omit = all workspaces in one call). The description only restates the today default and adds no syntax or filtering detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource (obtain the daily note for a date, default today) and defines what a daily note is. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools search_daily_notes and get_recent_notes, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Para buscar en notas de varios días, usar search_daily_notes o get_recent_notes'. It also notes the default date behavior and the missing-note case, leaving little to inference.

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