search_by_date_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the tool as a read operation and mentions return fields (paths and timestamps), but it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the search is case-sensitive or limited to certain note types. The disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 highly concise with no redundant sentences. It uses bullet points for clarity and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Every section earns its place.

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 the basic purpose, usage guidance, and return types, but it lacks details about result sorting, pagination, or limits. Given the tool has no output schema, the description could be more complete by specifying the format or ordering of results.

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?

With 75% schema coverage, three parameters (date_type, days_ago, operator) already have descriptions. The description adds context by explaining when to use specific parameter combinations (e.g., 'recently modified notes' for days_ago, 'specific time period' for date_type). This adds value beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on every parameter's nuances.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching notes by creation or modification date. It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('notes'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_notes which handle content-based or tag-based searches.

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 provides 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, with concrete examples and clear alternatives (e.g., 'use search_notes' for content-based search). This fully informs the agent when to select this tool over others.

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