Search journal notes

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds real behavioral detail: newest-first single stream split by kind, the shape of each stream, keyset pagination via cursor/nextCursor, and the OAuth sign-in requirement. These are exactly the traits an agent needs and cannot infer from the annotations.

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-loaded with the verb and resource, then filters, then pagination, then auth — a logical order with no filler. It is dense to the point of being one long run-on, but every clause carries information.

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 return-shape burden and does so: it describes the stream split, the per-kind contents, and the pagination cursor contract. Auth and filtering caveats round it out, leaving nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is 86% so the baseline is already high, yet the description still adds meaning: `q` is case-insensitive, `to`/`from` form a day-key window, `symbol` applies only to trade notes, `accounts` scoping with unknown-id rejection, and the cursor must keep other arguments identical. It notably compensates for the `symbol` parameter, which has no schema description.

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) plus the exact resource (the notes feed) and even resolves the resource into its two constituent streams, `notes` and `tradeNotes`. An agent can distinguish it from journal_list_trades or journal_get_day without opening a 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 concrete usage context: omit every filter to get the latest notes, symbol only applies to trade notes (day notes drop out), and it names journal_update_note/journal_update_trade as the follow-up consumers of the returned ids. It never explicitly names a sibling search/list tool as the alternative to use instead, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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