search_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 mentions the search functionality but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence: 'Search reminders by text in title or notes.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets a minimum viable standard with clear gaps.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('searchText' and 'completed') fully. The description implies text-based searching but does not add syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal 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: 'Search reminders by text in title or notes.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('reminders'), and scope ('by text in title or notes'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_reminders' or 'search_reminders' (if any other search tools exist), which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_reminders', 'get_completed_reminders', and 'get_overdue_reminders', it's unclear if this tool is for general retrieval or specific text-based searches. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage ambiguous.

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