List journal entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safe read profile. The description adds time-range scoping and explains that journal entries live alongside events/tasks, but it does not describe pagination, calendar filtering, or other call 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 short and readable at roughly 36 words with no filler. The opening sentence is an awkward fragment and would be clearer with an explicit verb, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description need not document parameters or returns. It provides useful domain context and time-range scoping, but misses an explicit action statement and any usage boundary relative to list_events, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, with all six parameters individually documented. The description contributes no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is a noun phrase defining what journal entries are, not a statement of what the tool does. The title supplies the verb 'List', and the mention of events/tasks gives some sibling context, but the purpose is not crisply stated as an action.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of siblings like list_events or get_journal. The CalDAV/diary context hints at the domain but does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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