list_due_items

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies read-only behavior through the verb 'Read' without stating it. It says nothing about whether completed/dismissed items are included, how timezones or the reference date are determined, how many items come back, or what the 'reveal' flag changes about the result.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core resource and appends the scoping parameter example. Nothing is redundant, though the brevity contributes to the missing behavioral detail.

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, so return-value explanation is not required, and the 'within' default is covered by the schema. However, for a tool with zero annotations and an undocumented 'reveal' flag, the description leaves the agent without enough information to know what the flag does or how results are bounded.

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 0%, and the description compensates for only one of the two parameters, clarifying that 'within' is a duration such as '30d'. The 'reveal' boolean is left completely unexplained in both schema and description, so half the parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clearly scoped resource ('upcoming and overdue documents/important dates'), which is distinguishable from the CRUD/table siblings like query_rows and list_tables. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'upcoming and overdue' — an agent can infer this is the tool for deadline-oriented retrieval rather than general row listing. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of prerequisites or how it differs from siblings such as query_rows or get_history.

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