journal_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It conveys the core behavior (search by text) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe the return format, matching semantics (e.g., substring vs. semantic), or result ordering. This is a basic disclosure without deeper behavioral context.

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. The first sentence front-loads the main verb and resource; the second adds illustrative examples without redundancy. Every word 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?

For a simple 2-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it. The absence of an output schema is partially offset by the phrase 'find entries,' which implies a list of matching entries. Minor gaps like result format are not critical for selection and basic 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?

Both parameters (query, limit) have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('journal entries') with a specific method ('by text'). It also expands on the kinds of search intents (topics, emotions, events). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like journal_list_entries or journal_get_entry.

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 usage for finding entries by text but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over listing all entries or getting a specific entry. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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