summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does usefully reveal the output form (human-readable text intended for chat pasting) rather than structured data, but says nothing about read-only safety, whether completed tasks are included, how 'due' is computed relative to reset windows, or behavior when the character filter is omitted.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and zero filler. The 'paste into chat' phrase is purposeful rather than padding, though the definition could be slightly tighter by folding the filter note into the first sentence.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of context, and it covers purpose, output form, and a default-use case. It omits the semantics of 'due/overdue' (reset timing), default scope when no character is given, and ordering, which matter for a report tool.

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 for the single `character` parameter. It does state the parameter is optional and acts as a filter, but gives no value format (name vs. ID) or what happens when it is omitted — presumably all characters, but that is left to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Return a readable due/overdue report." The name 'summary' alone is vague, but the description makes clear this is a formatted report rather than raw data, which implicitly separates it from list_tasks/list_resets. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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?

"Best default reply for 'what are my FFXIV chores?'" gives a concrete trigger for selecting this tool over the list_* siblings. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for cases where the agent needs structured/raw data, so it falls short of a 5.

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