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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: whole-corpus scanning scope, AI-based extraction, date resolution from relative phrases ('tomorrow'/'next week'), and a flag for owners who are not system users — meaningful behavioral detail.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. The second sentence efficiently carries the output semantics that the absent output schema would otherwise leave blank.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the extracted fields (owner, action, resolved due date, non-system-user flag). For a zero-parameter, read-only analysis tool this is close to sufficient, though it says nothing about result volume, pagination, or how notes are sourced.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no text on inputs and instead describes the shape of the extracted rows.

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 and resource: scanning notes to extract follow-up promises, callbacks and deadlines from free text, and it clarifies the output shape (owner, action, due date). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as broken_promises, quotes_to_follow_up or overdue_tasks, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It conveys scope ('Scans all notes') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives among the many follow-up-adjacent siblings. An agent has to guess whether this or broken_promises/quotes_to_follow_up is the right call.

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