List upcoming

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real domain behavior: which application stages contribute deadlines versus interviews, that rejected applications and offers are omitted, and that results are date-sorted with reminders. It doesn't discuss volume, but with annotations and an output schema that is acceptable.

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?

The core purpose and filtering rules are front-loaded, followed by the parameter notes and an example prompt. It is a bit dense in a single block and repeats default values already present in the schema, but no sentence is truly wasted.

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 an output schema available, the description doesn't need to explain return values, and it covers the important remaining context: inclusion rules, sorting, defaults and a sample query. It is essentially complete for a read-only listing tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their defaults. The description largely restates days and include_overdue, though it does clarify that today means 'ask as if it were another day', which is a small semantic addition beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: showing upcoming deadlines and interviews sorted by date, with an explicit reminder per item. It also defines the population precisely (applied-stage deadlines, interview-stage items with interview_date, excluding rejected and offers), which clearly separates it from siblings like add_application, update_status and export_report.

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 inclusion/exclusion rules give a clear sense of when this tool applies, and the example prompt anchors the intended use. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative (e.g. export_report for a saved file) or stating when not to use it, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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