scf_get_upcoming_evidence

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as read-only; the description adds value by specifying the viewer role requirement and explaining the calculation method (frequency and last upload). It discloses behavior beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the final phrase 'The daily what is due view' adds contextual value without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, how it computes, and the viewer role. It doesn't describe return format or pagination, but that is minor given the tool's simplicity and the safety profile provided by annotations.

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%, with both parameters fully documented (days has range and default; org_id has format and sourcing instruction). The description adds no new parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('evidence whose next collection falls due within N days'), and clarifies the computation basis (frequency and last upload). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scf_list_evidence and scf_get_evidence by focusing on the 'daily what is due' view, making the purpose 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?

The description implies usage via 'The daily what is due view,' which suggests when an agent would use this over a general listing tool, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use them. The guidance is inferred, not explicit.

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