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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: returns at most 500 rows, orders by most overdue first, and includes days-late information. This goes beyond the schema and annotations without contradicting them.

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 tightly written sentences: the first defines the resource and scope, the second communicates limit, ordering, and the days-late output. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 read-only list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly: scope, result size cap, ordering, and key output content. No critical behavioral or invocation detail is missing.

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 single optional parameter is already fully described in the schema: 'Only this hire's overdue tasks. Omit for every hire.' The description mirrors this scope but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 clearly identifies the tool as listing tasks that are outstanding past their due date, with scope across all hires or a single hire. It is distinct in substance from siblings like onboarding_progress or onboarding_task_add, though it does not explicitly name an alternative it is not.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need overdue onboarding tasks, optionally filtered by a hire. However, it never states when to prefer this over related tools like onboarding_progress or onboarding_hire_list, and no exclusions are given.

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