upcoming_dates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the window is inclusive, only 'ordinary' birthdays are included, and only 'active' (dated) reminders qualify. It stops short of describing ordering, page limits, or return shape.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the optional filter. No filler, though the parenthetical alias note is the only real elaboration and the line break adds nothing.

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?

A read-only, three-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema-level parameter documentation needs more than two sentences. The description omits the default window (30 days) and any sense of what each returned entry contains, leaving the agent to guess about result structure.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partly does, explaining that `person` accepts a name or alias and that `person_id` targets a specific individual, but `window_days` is never explained beyond the phrase 'inclusive upcoming window', and precedence when both person parameters are supplied is unstated.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource pair: it returns ordinary birthdays plus dated active reminders within an inclusive upcoming window. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from mutation siblings like set_reminder or record_fact, though it never names the closest alternative (list_reminders) to contrast scope.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The only selection advice is the optional narrowing to one person, which is a parameter concern rather than routing guidance; an agent cannot tell from this text how it relates to list_reminders or get_person_timeline.

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