find-reminders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's read-only nature is consistent. The description adds value by explaining the distinction between time-based (reminderId) and location reminders (locationReminderId), which is behavioral context not present in the annotations alone.

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 concise, two sentences that front-load the primary use case (find by task ID) and then clarify the ID types. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple finder with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It covers all parameter use cases and the read-only nature. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that only one of the three parameters should be provided at a time, but this is implied and unlikely to cause major issues.

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 baseline is 3. The description slightly reinforces the parameter semantics by restating the reminderId/locationReminderId distinction, but it adds little beyond the existing schema descriptions. The schema already provides clear meaning for each parameter, so the description offers marginal extra value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('reminders'), and differentiates between finding by task ID (returns all reminder types) and by specific reminder ID. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like add-reminders and update-reminders, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 description provides clear usage context: use taskId to retrieve all reminders for a task, or use reminderId/locationReminderId for specific reminder types. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the parameter-specific guidance gives the agent a clear idea of when to use each input, which is adequate for a simple finder tool.

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