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

Annotations already establish safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: results should be concise items/links, and sensitive actions should be deferred to Promise. This is consistent with readOnly semantics and clarifies that the tool does not execute actions.

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 sentences with no filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, and the safety note earns its place by preventing misuse. It is appropriately sized for a simple 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?

For a simple, read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the essential outcome ('items and links') and safety posture. It does not explain return structure or horizonDays semantics, but annotations and schema constraints cover enough for this complexity level.

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%, and the description does not mention horizonDays at all. The parameter name and min/max/default constraints in the schema carry the entire semantic load, and 'currently' only weakly implies a time horizon. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 gives a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('what currently deserves the user's attention'), which conveys a daily/current-attention digest rather than a generic search or list. However, it doesn't specify what categories of items are included or differentiate itself from siblings like list_commitments or get_person_context, so it stops 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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as list_commitments, get_commitment, or search_memory. The 'Safety' sentence is about output behavior rather than usage context or exclusions, leaving selection entirely to the agent's inference.

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