what_is_due_this_week

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the inclusion criterion (due dates plus overdue). It does not state that this is a read-only query, whether results are ordered, or any result-count limits, though the presence of an output schema covers the return shape.

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?

A single tight sentence with the inclusion criterion front-loaded and the `days` window defined inline. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter query with an output schema, the essentials are present, but an agent still can't tell what a 'next action' is derived from or how this tool relates to the other application-listing siblings. Sibling routing is the main missing piece.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only says 'integer, default 7', so the description does real work by defining `days` as the upcoming window and noting overdue items are included. It also resolves the tension between the name 'this_week' and the configurable window, though it doesn't state the allowed range.

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 makes clear this retrieves applications by upcoming action date, and clarifies the scope includes overdue items. It lacks an explicit verb and never differentiates itself from siblings like list_applications or find_stale_applications, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative; the description never says to prefer this over list_applications or find_stale_applications. Usage is only implied by the due-date framing.

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