Recent annotations

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description usefully adds that timestamps are in the server's local time zone plus the exact row layout returned. It does not cover edge behavior such as what happens with an out-of-range offset or an empty result set, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line summary, then a format block, then args. Every element is relevant, though the multi-line row-format example is slightly more elaborate than needed for a two-parameter read tool.

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 output schema, describing the row format is the right call, and both parameters are fully documented. Minor gaps remain around empty-result and paging-limit behavior, but an agent has enough to invoke the tool 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 carries the full burden, and it does: 'limit' is documented with a range (1-500) and default (10) that the schema lacks, and 'offset' is explained as a paging skip count.

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?

States a specific resource ('annotations') with a clear recency scope and ordering ('Most recent ... newest first'). This distinguishes it in spirit from list_all_annotations and search_annotations, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'so Claude can see chronology across books at a glance' implies the browsing use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to list_annotations, list_all_annotations, or search_annotations. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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