get_journal_entry

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the operation is a read ('Get') and that it 'Returns complete entry content', which is useful. It does not disclose error behavior or formatting details, but points to a guide for format specifications.

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 with no filler: the first states the purpose and allowed lookup modes, the second states the return and points to a format guide. Each sentence 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 read operation with two fully documented parameters, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. A pointer to the journal format guide fills the format gap. It could add expected not-found behavior, but the tool is simple enough that the current description is nearly complete.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's mention of 'date and time or headline substring' mostly mirrors the schema's identifier description and adds no new semantic information beyond it.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a specific journal entry'. It clearly identifies lookup criteria ('by date and time or headline substring') and states the return value ('complete entry content'). This differentiates it from search_journal and list_journal_entries, which are for broader retrieval.

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 this tool is for retrieving one known entry when the date and identifier are available. However, it does not explicitly say when to use an alternative like search_journal or list_journal_entries, and no when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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