sd_get_diary_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral constraints: available years (1808-1811, 1817, 1820-1834) and explicitly notes non-extant periods (1812-1816, 1818-1819). It also describes the return format as a list of dicts with date, left_side, right_side content, giving the agent concrete expectations.

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 well-organized with clear sections (PURPOSE, Available years, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, Args, Returns) that each serve a distinct function. Minor redundancy exists between the opening sentence and PURPOSE section, but overall it remains efficient and scannable.

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 range-retrieval tool with two parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage distinctions, data availability, parameter formats, and output structure. No critical information is missing that an agent would need 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD) for date_from and date_to, plus the `ctx` FastMCP context parameter. This fully resolves the meaning of each parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve diary entries') and defines the scope as a date range. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting when not to use it (single date or keyword search). This is a solid, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 includes explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, naming specific alternatives: get_diary_entry() for single dates and search_in_documents() for keyword searches. This provides clear decision criteria for an agent.

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