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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key behavioral constraint: acknowledgment is read-only and can only be set by the human via pressing 1 or tapping the link. It also clarifies the tool reports on the 'live occurrence' and includes timestamps. It does not mention side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied and the explicit 'you can never set it' is valuable transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states exactly what the tool returns, the second gives concrete use cases, and the third adds the critical behavioral constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 status tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the statuses, the live-occurrence scope, and the read-only acknowledgment constraint. It does not describe the exact return shape, but since there is no output schema and the statuses are enumerated, an agent has enough to call it correctly. Minor gap: no mention of what happens if the reminder_id is invalid or not found.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context that the optional 'step' parameter filters to a single step, but it does not add detail beyond the schema's own description. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('get'/'check') and resource ('per-step delivery and acknowledgment status for the live occurrence'), and enumerates the exact statuses returned (scheduled, sent, confirmed, failed, skipped). It also gives concrete example questions the tool answers, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_reminder or list_reminders.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool ('This is how you answer...'), which is strong usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the example questions and the focus on live occurrence status make the intended context clear.

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