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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the lower bar applies and the description still adds real value: it defines what a to-do is (a commitment from a Delta Meeting) and discloses that series copies carry `repeat` plus a plain-English `summary` and `seriesId`. It stops short of saying whether completed to-dos are returned by default or how results are ordered.

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 and scope first, filters second, return-shape note last – properly front-loaded. The `repeat` sentence is niche but earns its place given there is no output schema; nothing is redundant.

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 low-complexity, three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters and one notable return field. It leaves a meaningful gap around default behavior (are closed to-dos included without open=true?) and around the undocumented owner_external_id, both of which affect correct invocation.

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 67% and the two documented parameters (open, meeting_id) are already well described in the schema, so the description mostly repeats them. It does map "by owner" onto the otherwise undocumented owner_external_id, but gives no hint about where that external ID comes from or how to obtain it.

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?

"List 7-day to-dos (commitments made in a Delta Meeting)" states a specific verb, resource, time window and origin, which separates it from list_meetings, list_rocks and list_tickets. It does not explicitly contrast with the mutating siblings (add_todo, complete_todo, update_todo), but the query verb makes the distinction obvious.

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 filtering options (open=true, meeting_id, owner) which implies how to narrow use, but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as list_meetings or how to reach to-dos outside the 7-day window. Usage is inferred rather than directed, with no explicit exclusions.

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