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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what the response contains — due vs. done status plus per-ritual streak and weekly progress — which is otherwise unknowable without an output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and scope come first and the return contents follow immediately.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably by enumerating due/done/streak/progress. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether rituals not scheduled for that day appear at all.

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 100%, and the single date parameter is fully documented including its YYYY-MM-DD format and today default. The description's 'for one day' wording aligns with the schema but adds no syntax or semantics beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the resource (the user's rituals/recurring habits), the scope (one day), and the content returned (due, done, streak, weekly progress). An agent can distinguish it from mark_ritual at a glance, though the listing verb itself is only implied by the name rather than stated.

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 one-day scope hints at usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., mark_ritual for updating status). The agent must infer that this is the read path for daily habit review.

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