get_records_by_date_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation is a read and that the date range is inclusive, but it does not mention return format, pagination, default behavior when 'types' is omitted, or error handling.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. The verb and resource appear immediately, and every word ('inclusive', 'date range') adds relevant meaning.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the return shape and default behavior unstated, and the relationship to search_records is unexplored. Still, for a straightforward date-range read, the schema plus description provides a minimally viable definition.

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?

The schema already documents from/to with inclusive YYYY-MM-DD formats. The description adds that records are journal/input, which aligns with the optional types enum, but does not clarify the default filtering behavior when types is omitted. With 67% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 clear verb ('Read') and resource ('journal and input records') with a date-range scope, making the tool's query purpose obvious. It distinguishes itself from the capture_* siblings by being a read operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with search_records.

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 when to use the tool: when records need to be read within an inclusive date range. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives, leaving the choice between this tool and search_records to inference.

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