Get Recent Entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't mention pagination behavior (cursor vs offset), the 500 cap, sort options, workspace scoping, or whether archived entries are excluded by default.

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?

A single short sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of nearly all useful detail for a 9-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema and annotations are present, so return values and safety needn't be restated. Still, for a tool with 9 optional parameters, two pagination modes and a sort switch, the description leaves the agent without enough context to invoke it correctly without reading the schema closely.

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 only 44% across 9 parameters. The description mentions none of them, leaving cursor, sort_by, is_personal, use_test_db, project_number, include_archived and workspace_id undocumented in prose. With low schema coverage the description was expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get ... journal entries') with a recency qualifier, so the basic operation is clear. However, with siblings such as search_entries, search_by_date_range, team_get_recent and get_entry_by_id, it offers no differentiation — an agent cannot tell from this text alone why to pick this tool over a date-range search.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The recency framing implies a 'latest N' use case, but the agent has to infer that from the name rather than being told.

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