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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no return format, no ordering, no pagination/limit behavior, no session context requirements.

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?

It is short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness — the single sentence carries no information the agent does not already have from the title. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing substantive to front-load.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, so it does not need much, but it should at least describe what a 'due' card looks like and how the limit applies. As written, the description leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently versus srs_review.

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 0% for the single 'limit' parameter, which has only a default of 10 and no explanation. The description does not compensate by stating what limit caps, whether it is a maximum, or what happens when it is omitted.

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 is a verbatim restatement of the title 'Cards due for review' and the name srs_due, with no distinct verb (e.g., 'list'/'return') and no differentiation from siblings such as srs_review, defer_card, or skip_card. It nominally identifies the resource concept, but it is effectively a tautology.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives despite several closely related siblings (srs_review, defer_card, skip_card, mark_known), and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name.

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