Search saved work logs

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful "local read" confirmation (no network involvement) and hints at a snippet-based result shape, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or how the 20/100 limit constrains output.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope statement comes first and the safety note last. The sentence listing returned fields is mildly redundant since an output schema exists, which keeps 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 an output schema covering return values and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing framing: local, read-only archive search over four filter axes. The remaining gap is pagination and default-limit behavior for a zero-required-parameter search, which is a moderate but not crippling omission.

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 description coverage is only 43%, so the description carries real weight here; naming text, date range, timezone and sync state maps to query, from/to, timezone and syncState. However, limit and offset (the pagination pair) get no mention, and the description doesn't clarify matching semantics for query or whether filters combine with AND.

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 gives a specific verb-plus-resource ("Search the local work-log archive") and enumerates the filter dimensions: text, date range, timezone and sync state. It is clearly distinct from generation/publishing siblings such as save_worklog or publish_worklog, though it does not explicitly name how it differs from get_daily_worklog or preview_daily_worklog.

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?

"This is a local read" plus the archive framing implies when to reach for it (retrieval over stored logs without network sync), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer the boundary against get_daily_worklog and preview_daily_worklog on its own.

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