Query journal

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the 'tail' behavior and filter dimensions, but does not disclose default line counts or the interpretation of 'since'. No contradiction with 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 a single, front-loaded fragment with no filler. The noun-phrase 'User journal tail' is efficient but could be clearer as a full sentence, and a bit more explicit detail would not harm conciseness.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and main filters. However, the ambiguity around the 'since' value format and the omission of the lines parameter are notable gaps for correct 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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates by identifying service, priority, and since as filters, and 'tail' implies the lines parameter. However, it does not explain value formats (e.g., since timestamp format) or explicitly mention lines, leaving gaps.

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 names a specific resource ('user journal') and operation ('tail'), and lists the optional filters service/priority/since. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling log-oriented tools like audit_log, docker_logs, and vercel_logs.

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 implies use for reading recent user journal entries, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool is referenced, leaving the agent to infer the context from the resource name.

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