Next review date

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description explains the selection logic: the first review that is not on or after the exam and has not passed, counting from the first study date. It also discloses that dates can be accepted as plain text, which is useful behavioral context for invocation.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and selection rule, followed by the key alternative and a concrete example. Each sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary repetition.

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, open-world scheduling query with a fully documented schema, the description is largely complete. It does not specify what happens when no future review exists, but that is a minor gap for this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces the relationship between exam_date, from_date, and first_study_date, but it does not add meaningfully new details about intervals_days beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it gives the next review date for one topic, not the whole schedule. It also explicitly contrasts itself with make_spaced_repetition_schedule, making the tool easy to distinguish from a sibling.

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?

It clearly says to use make_spaced_repetition_schedule when every review date is wanted, which implies this tool is for a single next date. The guidance is strong but does not address the other similarly named sibling spaced_repetition_dates, leaving a small ambiguity.

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