Search Reminders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the search scope ('name or body') and the LOCAL mode restriction, which goes beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction is present.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource. Every word adds value: the search subject, the search fields, and the mode restriction. No redundant or filler content.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what is searched and the mode limitation. However, it does not explicitly state what the response contains (e.g., matching reminders), which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, setting a baseline of 3. The description enhances understanding by clarifying that the query matches against both 'name or body', which gives semantic meaning to the 'query' parameter beyond the schema's generic 'Search text'.

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 identifies the tool as a search operation ('Search reminders') with a specific scope ('by text in name or body'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-reminders and other search tools (search-notes, search-emails), and the 'LOCAL mode only' qualifier adds a unique constraint.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (searching reminders by text) and includes a critical mode restriction ('LOCAL mode only'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list-reminders or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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