zk_list_notes_by_date

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool lists notes, it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, what happens if no notes match, or if there are rate limits. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 description is efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose content, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral details (e.g., ordering, pagination, error handling) and usage context relative to siblings. Without an output schema, it also doesn't describe return values, which is a notable gap for a listing tool.

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 description adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains all four parameters concisely: 'start_date' and 'end_date' as ISO format dates, 'use_updated' as a boolean for choosing between creation or update timestamps, and 'limit' as a maximum result count. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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's purpose: 'List notes created or updated within a date range.' This specifies the verb ('list'), resource ('notes'), and scope ('within a date range'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'zk_search_notes' or 'zk_find_similar_notes', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'zk_search_notes' and 'zk_find_similar_notes' available, there's no indication of when date-range filtering is preferred over other search methods, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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