List calendar notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces safety with 'Read only.' It adds genuinely new behavior: the inclusive date bounds, the workspace time-zone interpretation, and the 400-day cap on the requested range. It does not say how many notes can come back or how truncation is signaled.

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 safety qualifier and the core 'what' are front-loaded, and every sentence carries content. The opening clause ('The notes on the calendar with a day between from and to') is slightly convoluted and could be stated more directly, keeping it from a 5.

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 burden of describing return values and does so fully (title, optional text, colour, covered day range). Combined with the range cap, time-zone semantics, and the planning rationale, 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point because it clarifies that both bounds are inclusive and interpreted in the workspace time zone — semantics the schema's 'First day' / 'Last day' wording does not convey.

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 uses a specific verb ('The notes on the calendar...') and enumerates the returned fields (title, optional text, colour, covered days), so the resource is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool `postfjord_list_calendar`, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

It gives concrete usage context: 'Notes mark things like a sale, a holiday or a course start; read them before you plan posts for those days,' which tells the agent when the tool is valuable. It offers no explicit exclusion or alternative (e.g., when to use `postfjord_list_calendar` instead), so it falls short of a 5.

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