search_journal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns complete matching entries and that it searches last 30 days by default. This gives the agent a clear sense of the output and time scope. However, it doesn't mention any limits, pagination, or whether the search is case-insensitive or fuzzy, which are minor gaps for a search tool.

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 four sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding usage guidance and the default window. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy. A small improvement would be to combine the default latency into the first sentence, but the current structure is clear and efficient.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return behavior ('Returns complete matching entries') and the default time range. It doesn't mention potential pagination or result limits, which could be relevant for large queries, but the tool appears straightforward. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 both query and days_back having descriptive text. The description adds little beyond restating the schema: 'query string' and 'matches headlines and content' align with the schema, and the default 30 days is already in the parameter description. The description's main additional value is in usage context, not parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'search', the resource 'journal entries', and the scope 'across recent days'. It also explicitly notes it returns complete matching entries, which distinguishes it from get_journal_entry (fetches a specific entry) and list_journal_entries (lists without query). The sibling context reinforces differentiation, as search_tasks and search_projects target different resources.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'find past work on a topic, review recent activity, or look up when something was done.' It also mentions the default 30-day window, which sets expectations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_journal_entry or list_journal_entries, though the purpose wording makes the distinction clear.

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