Get journal entries and check-ins

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

The annotations already include readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral information beyond that: results are merged by date, journal bodies are stored as HTML and converted to markdown, and there is a practical instruction to quote the user's words. This exceeds the baseline set by 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?

The description is front-loaded with 'READ ONLY' and each sentence earns its place: scope, content explanation, distinction from get_report, usage hint, and a formatting note. It is slightly long but not padded, and the structure is logical.

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?

The description covers what data is returned, the merge behavior, the two data types, and the relationship to get_report. Without an output schema it does not spell out the exact response field structure, but the high-quality parameter schema and the description's detail make the tool adequately understandable for selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including formats, defaults, and timezone interpretation. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond clarifying the distinction between journal and check-ins, which is consistent with the schema's 'include' enum. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('the user's written journal and their daily check-ins') and clearly distinguishes itself from get_report. It is not a tautology and gives an agent enough to know exactly what this tool does.

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?

The description explicitly contrasts with get_report ('as opposed to get_report which answers "where did my hours go"') and instructs when to use it ('Read both when the user asks how a week went'). This gives clear selection criteria against a sibling tool.

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