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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set (when, note, done), but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or whether all reminders are returned, so it only partially extends beyond the annotations.

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 short fragment with no waste, and the resource is front-loaded before the field list. It is terse but not padded.

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 is the only source of return-value information and gives only a partial field list without ordering, count, or pagination details. Parameters are fully covered by the schema, so the gap is limited to output behavior.

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%, with both lead_id and project_id documented with UUID formats and pointers to dosai_list_leads/dosai_list_projects. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the resource (reminders on a lead) and the fields the list exposes (when, note, done status), which distinguishes it from the sibling dosai_add_lead_reminder. It lacks an explicit verb (e.g. 'list'), so it is clear but not maximally sharp.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dosai_list_followups or dosai_add_lead_reminder, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. Usage is only weakly implied by the resource name.

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