search-journal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'RAG' but does not disclose potential delays, authentication needs, or whether the search is destructive or read-only. The description is too vague on behavior.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey the core purpose and example usage with no filler. Every word adds value, earning a high score.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the search functionality and provides examples. However, it lacks details on return format, ordering, or the date_filter's exact behavior, making it adequate but not complete.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It includes example usage which provides context, but does not elaborate on parameter details or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'journal entries using RAG', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The example questions ('how did I do at work this year?') further clarify usage, and the purpose is distinct from siblings like add-memo and get-journal-stats.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, specifically for asking questions about journal entries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though siblings are listed separately.

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