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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive=false, but the description adds meaningful context: results are exact-total with bounded pages, and listing does not complete/settle a reminder. That last point is a real behavioral clarification an agent could otherwise get wrong.

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 tight sentences; the resource and scope come first, then the default and the non-mutation caveat. No filler.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and fully documented params, the description covers scope, default state, paging semantics, and the key non-effect. Only the exact return shape ('exact total') is left implicit, which is minor.

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 limit/offset/status are fully documented in-schema. The description only restates the default status and the paging behavior, adding little beyond what the schema already says.

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 verb (list) and resource (lead reminders) plus scope (selected product, open or done states). It is clearly distinguishable from create_reminder, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list_* siblings.

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?

Gives the default state ('Default is open') and clarifies it is non-mutating ('does not complete a reminder'), but offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions such as when to look elsewhere for reminder history.

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