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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the default scope is personal assigned items, household scope is only for family-wide wording, and owner-only tasks must not be misattributed to the current user. This goes beyond the annotations and gives an agent useful operational nuance.

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?

Three focused sentences with no filler. The usage trigger is front-loaded, followed by scope guidance and a critical correctness guardrail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 full schema coverage, read-only annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context. The only notable gap is that it does not define how 'next' is ordered or what exactly constitutes an 'upcoming family item', but this is not critical given the output schema.

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 the schema already documents limit, scope, timezone, and householdId. The description adds extra semantic context around scope and output attribution, particularly the warning about owner-only tasks. It does not add much about the other parameters, but the schema already carries that burden.

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 clearly identifies when the tool applies: questions about 'what is next', 'what should I do now', 'next task', or 'next upcoming family item'. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_today_schedule or get_weekly_overview, but the intended purpose is still clear.

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 gives concrete trigger phrases and explicitly says when to use personal vs household scope. It also adds the important guardrail about not describing owner-only tasks as assigned to the current user. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or name an alternative, so it falls just short of the highest bar.

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