List notebook entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: deleted entries are still returned with deleted=true, which is essential for incremental sync. Return-shape detail is otherwise thin (no output schema).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the resource is, then pagination, then the sync nuance. No filler and every sentence 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 covers the key non-obvious return behavior (deleted=true) and pagination, but does not sketch the entry shape beyond a topic list, leaving some return-value inference to the agent.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: `since` is not just a cursor but specifically the `next` value from the previous page, establishing the pagination protocol. farm_id semantics are left to the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (list field notebook entries) and enumerates what those entries contain: treatments, fertilising, irrigation, sowing, harvest, expenses, plus Anexo II compliance fields. An agent can immediately distinguish this from record_entry (write) and entry_history.

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 — paginate by passing `since` = the `next` cursor of the previous page, and states the mirror-sync use case. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over the sibling entry_history, so an exclusion or alternative is missing.

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