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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and an output schema covers the return value. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating retrieval, so it contributes little on top of the structured fields.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the usage condition, with no wasted words. It is terse to the point of being slightly thin, which keeps it just below a 5.

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 single-parameter read-only getter with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the purpose and the triggering condition an agent needs. It omits only optional niceties like error behavior for a missing id.

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% for the single reminder_id parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only references 'its id' without adding format or validation detail, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 (get details) and resource (one specific reminder), and the qualifier 'one specific' implicitly separates it from reminders.list. It stops short of naming the sibling outright, but an agent can distinguish retrieval-by-id from listing.

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 gives a clear when-to-use condition ('when you need the details of one specific reminder') plus the prerequisite ('and you have its id'), which is exactly the gating condition for a get-by-id call. No alternatives are named, so it falls short of a 5.

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