Spaced repetition dates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: dates on or after the exam are 'marked to skip' rather than silently dropped, and dates accept natural-language input. It does not describe the shape of the returned list, which is a minor gap given no 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope in the first clause, followed by the exam-cutoff behavior and the input flexibility, then a concrete example prompt. The mid-sentence 'so you revisit it just before you would forget it' is explanatory filler that could be cut without loss.

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 computation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, cutoff behavior, and accepted input formats adequately. The main omission is any hint of the return value (a list of dated entries with skip markers), which matters somewhat since there is no output schema.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the flexible date formats and the exam cutoff rule. The description largely restates that ('Dates can be plain text, like Dec 12 or in 3 weeks'; 'Dates on or after the exam are marked to skip') without adding format or default semantics the schema lacks, 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'List spaced repetition review dates for a topic at expanding intervals' — so an agent immediately knows it returns a computed date list rather than mutating anything. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like next_review_dates or make_spaced_repetition_schedule, which remain plausible alternatives on name alone.

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 example prompt ('When should I review what I learned today for my exam on 2026-11-30?') gives concrete context for when to reach for this tool. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing against the several overlapping siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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