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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds real behavioral context: reminders are resurfaced in the morning brief and optional brief email, inactive reminders are excluded by default, and delivery_note appears when the brief cadence prevents delivery. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place: the definition, the parameter, and a return caveat. No filler or repetition of schema data.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool, this is complete: it defines what is listed, how reminders are delivered, what the parameter controls, and what the response contains, including the edge case where delivery_note appears. No output schema exists, so the return documentation is necessary and sufficient.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description fully documents the only parameter, include_inactive, explaining that it includes delivered one-time and deactivated reminders and that it defaults to False. This adds meaning well beyond the schema's bare boolean and default value.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'List the user's scheduled reminders', and further clarifies them as 'texts they asked the agent to resurface on a schedule'. It also identifies their delivery channels, making the tool's role unique among siblings like list_notifications.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description implies the context by defining scheduled reminders, but it never names related tools such as create_reminder or delete_reminder or states conditions that should route an agent elsewhere.

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