Search Team Entries by Date Range

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: the TEAM_DB_PATH requirement and, critically, that the underlying DB is a shared multi-tenant domain where omitting project_number leaks other projects' data. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral risk annotations cannot convey. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or archived-entry 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?

Two tight sentences; the safety warning is set apart with a stop sign and comes after the core purpose. No filler.

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?

Covers purpose, environment prerequisite and the multi-tenancy hazard, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. With 10 parameters and 50% coverage, though, the description says nothing about pagination, sorting, or unpublished/archived inclusion, and gives no sibling routing — leaving noticeable holes for a tool this broad.

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 50%, leaving tags, limit, entry_type, project_number and include_archived undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by naming entry_type and tags as filters and by explaining what project_number is for, but it adds nothing about limit, cursor, sort_by or include_archived.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search team entries') plus the retrieval axis ('within a date range') and optional filters. The 'team' qualifier implicitly separates it from the non-team search_by_date_range sibling, but it never names team_search, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives a hard operational prerequisite — project_number MUST be supplied to isolate results in the shared multi-tenant domain — which is real usage guidance beyond the schema. However, it never says when to choose this over team_search or team_semantic_search, so an agent has no routing rule for sibling tools with overlapping purpose.

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