get_overdue_reminders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves overdue reminders but doesn't describe return format (e.g., list structure, fields), pagination behavior, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get all overdue reminders'), making it immediately understandable without requiring additional parsing. Every word earns its place by specifying the action and resource.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral traits. For a read-only tool with no parameters, this might be sufficient, but the absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at the response format.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document, and the description doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('overdue reminders'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_todays_reminders' and 'get_completed_reminders' by specifying the time-based filter. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what constitutes 'overdue' (e.g., past-due reminders), leaving some ambiguity.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'overdue' reminders, suggesting it should be used when retrieving past-due items rather than all reminders or those due today. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_reminders' or 'get_reminders', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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