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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds non-obvious behavioral detail annotations cannot convey: the result ordering ('Overdue first, then by due date') and the semantics of the default status grouping.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, defining the resource first, then filters, then ordering, in three short sentences with no filler. The clipped phrasing for the status list is slightly telegraphic but still readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers definition, filters, defaults, and ordering; only the limit parameter is unaddressed, leaving a minor gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load and does so for 4 of 5 params: status values (with default), due_before (ISO date), to (recipient address or domain), and monitor (a token). It adds enum-like status values the schema lacks, though 'limit' is left undocumented.

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 a well-defined resource, and clarifies what a 'follow-up' is ('promises found in mail they sent'), which disambiguates it from generic list tools. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like list_proposals or list_monitors, 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?

Gives the status vocabulary with its default ('open (default: proposed and tracked)') and explains that due_before, to, and monitor 'narrow it', which implies how to scope results. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_proposals or awaiting_reply, so usage is only implied.

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