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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the 1000-char truncation per note and the returned fields (date, summary, content, has_intelligence). It doesn't discuss auth or rate limits, but those are minor for a read tool.

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?

The 'Usar para' / alternatives / 'Retorna' structure is front-loaded and scannable, with each sentence carrying distinct information. Slightly verbose in the middle section but nothing redundant.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the return fields, and it covers purpose, scenarios, and alternatives for a simple optional-param read tool. An agent has everything needed 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 days, limit, and workspace_id (including the omit-means-all-workspaces behavior) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'últimas N notas' loosely maps to limit but adds no syntax or default detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Obtiene las últimas N notas diarias') and adds distinguishing scope details (AI summary, content excerpt, 1000-char cap). It explicitly differentiates itself from get_daily_note and search_daily_notes, so an agent can route without opening sibling 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?

A dedicated 'Usar para' block names concrete scenarios (reviewing this week's activity, recent work context), and two follow-up lines name the exact alternative tools and the conditions that select them (full note vs. content search). This is explicit when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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