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

With readOnlyHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral substance: it enumerates what counts as the promise being 'fulfilled' (invoice on the job, follow-up job created, payment received, communication sent) and states it returns ONLY unfulfilled ones. It omits any note on cost/performance or how the phrase matching is scoped, but the fulfillment logic is a meaningful disclosure beyond the 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?

Two dense but purposeful sentences, front-loaded with what the tool lists and followed by the matching logic. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical enumeration is long enough to strain single-pass readability.

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 no-output-schema analytical tool the description explains the selection logic adequately, but it never documents the days_back parameter or the default lookback when it is omitted, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% and the single parameter days_back is never mentioned in the description, so its meaning (lookback window? since date?) must be guessed. The description discusses time-flavored phrases like 'next week' but does not connect them to days_back, leaving the only parameter undocumented in both places.

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+resource (lists tech notes containing promise phrases) and a precise filter (only never-fulfilled promises), which is far more than a restatement of the name 'broken_promises'. It conceptually separates itself from follow-up siblings like overdue_tasks and quotes_to_follow_up by describing the fulfillment cross-reference, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 explains the output but gives no when-to-use guidance: no conditions, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over quotes_to_follow_up, overdue_tasks, or list_email_followups. The agent must infer the trigger entirely.

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