due_this_week

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a hard cap of at most 50 rows and that text is returned verbatim as stored, both of which affect how the agent should interpret results. It stops short of saying whether exceeding 50 rows means silent truncation or how ordering ties break.

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?

Two short sentences, with the scope/filter and ordering front-loaded before the return-shape note. Every clause carries information: filter, ordering, row cap, content fidelity.

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?

An output schema exists and zero parameters are required, so the description's burden is light, yet it still covers scope, ordering, row cap and verbatim text. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly adds no fake parameter guidance and instead spends its words on scope and output shape.

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 (List) and resource (roles) plus a precise filter predicate (next_date is today or within the next 7 days) and ordering (soonest first). That filter is exactly what separates it from the sibling list_roles (all roles) and get_role (single role), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 due-date predicate implies the use case (finding roles needing attention soon), but the description never says when to prefer this over list_roles or when to follow up with get_role. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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