roam_search_by_date

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is handled. The description's own contribution is the non-obvious session-scoped prerequisite that conventions must be loaded even for reads, which materially changes how results should be interpreted. It says nothing about result caps, ordering, or pagination, so it is not a 5.

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 tight paragraphs, purpose first, then the caveat, then the mandatory prerequisite in caps so it is not skimmed past. Every sentence carries weight; the only minor cost is that the IMPORTANT block is somewhat boilerplate in tone despite the useful 'reads included' nuance.

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 7 parameters at full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to cover intent, exclusions, and prerequisites — which it does. It omits result-size or pagination expectations for a date-range scan that could return many entities, which is the main remaining gap.

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% and the enum descriptions for type and scope already explain 'both' semantics and timezone handling, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no date-format, timestamp-source, or bounds guidance beyond what is documented, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 verb and resource plus the discriminating criterion: search blocks or pages by creation or modification date. It also carves out one exclusion (daily pages with ordinal date titles), which distinguishes it from the ordinal-date path. It does not differentiate from close siblings like roam_find_pages_modified_today or roam_search_by_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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 an explicit when-not ('Not for daily pages with ordinal date titles') and a hard prerequisite (call roam_get_guidelines once per session before use, reads included). That is real routing guidance, but it never names the sibling to use instead for daily pages or for modified-today queries, leaving the agent to infer the alternative.

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