Get daily note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The phrase 'straight from your account' adds a live-fetch nuance consistent with openWorldHint, but the description says nothing about behavior when the note box is empty, whether it errors or returns blank, or any freshness/rate-limit characteristics.

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?

Two short sentences with the core identity front-loaded and the parameter format folded into a single parenthetical. Nothing is padded or repeated from the name.

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?

For a read-only, single-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource location and the date default/format, which is enough to invoke it correctly. Only edge-case return behavior (empty note) is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 0% for the single date parameter, so the description must compensate and largely does: it gives the format 'YYYY-MM-DD' and the default 'today'. It stops short of stating the accepted range or timezone behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource: the free-text 'Notes' box at the bottom of the day, which implicitly separates it from fitness_get_day. It never explicitly names a sibling or scope boundary, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told it.

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?

Usage is only implied: reading the note versus fitness_log_note for writing is obvious from the verb, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. Adequate but leaves the routing inference to the agent.

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