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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the default active filter and due-date sorting, but doesn't describe return format, pagination, or how include_completed changes behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the additional context (all life domains, sorted by due date) is compact and valuable.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with three optional parameters, all documented in the schema, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description explains what is listed, the scope, and ordering. It lacks explicit return-structure info, but that's acceptable for a straightforward list operation.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'active commitments' and 'all life domains' indirectly relates to include_completed and domain, but it doesn't add parameter syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (user's active commitments), with useful detail about scope (all life domains) and ordering (by due date). It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate, but the object and action are unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need to see a user's active commitments—but it doesn't provide explicit alternatives or exclusions. There is no comparison to similar list tools like list_my_work or list_attention_directives, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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