upcoming_dates

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a read-only operation, and the description reinforces that with 'Return'. It adds useful behavioral details: the window is inclusive, reminders must be dated and active, and the result can be narrowed by person. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence contributes: the first defines the result set and window, the second explains optional filtering. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the core behavior adequately. However, it does not clarify window_days semantics or the interaction/precedence of person_id vs person, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent choosing parameters.

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 explains that person can be a name or alias and that person_id/person narrow results, but it does not explain window_days beyond the vague 'upcoming window' phrase. The default value of 30 and the parameter name provide partial meaning, but the description itself leaves a gap.

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 ('Return') and names the resource ('ordinary birthdays and dated active reminders inside an inclusive upcoming window'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as list_reminders, though the combined birthday/reminder scope partially separates it.

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 explains optional person filtering but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over similar siblings like list_reminders or get_person_context. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection cues.

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