search_diary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape ('matching entries with date, time and tags'), which is useful, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, the default limit of 50, or how truncation at the max is signalled.

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 sentences, both front-loaded: the capability first, then the return shape. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or filler wording.

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 read-only search tool with fully described parameters, the description covers what it does and what comes back. The remaining gap is ordering and pagination behavior, which matters but is minor for a 5-parameter tool with no output schema.

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 100%, so every parameter including query, from, to, tag, and limit is already documented in the schema with formats and bounds. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search across every diary entry') and names the matching fields returned. It is clearly distinct from siblings like log_work, delete_entry, or stats, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'full-text search' suggests you use this when you have a text fragment rather than a date or tag. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as daily_summary or stats, and no note on whether date/tag-only browsing is better served elsewhere.

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