List entries

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does: field list, newest-first ordering, and a privacy constraint that text is never returned. It doesn't discuss pagination behavior or what an empty range yields, which is a minor gap for a list 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the return fields, then the optional filter. No filler and nothing buried.

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 five optional parameters and no output schema, the description appropriately covers what comes back and in what order, which is the key unknown. It could be slightly more complete by noting default window or pagination implications, but the schema handles those defaults.

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 80%, so the schema already documents from/to (with defaults and the 366-day cap), limit, offset, and the emotion filter. The description only restates the emotion filter's meaning and supplies one label example, adding little beyond the structured field.

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 resource (journal entries), scope (date range), ordering (newest first), and enumerates the returned fields. The line "Never returns entry text" implicitly routes the agent to get_entry_text, so it is distinguishable from its siblings without opening the 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 clear context for the common case and suggests the optional emotion filter with a concrete example ("joy"). It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly (e.g. get_mood_timeline for trend questions, get_entry_text for content), so exclusions are only implied.

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