todo_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions efficiency and token conservation but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects (if any) exist, how results are returned, or any rate limits. The read-only nature and return format are left implicit, which is a significant gap.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that clearly state purpose, provide usage preference, and give a specific parameter tip. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks critical context about what the function returns (e.g., list of todos, pagination info, or just summaries). It also omits any mention of error handling, default behaviors, or edge cases. The description is too brief to be considered complete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional assumptions.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, and the tool description adds a hint about calendar_url (omitting it searches all calendars) and hints at token conservation implying limit usage. However, beyond that, the description does not provide additional semantic meaning for the other parameters beyond what the schema already explains. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description contributes 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 as 'Search and filter todos efficiently', naming the specific verb (search/filter), resource (todos), and scope (efficiently). It also hints at a preferred alternative to list_todos, which reinforces the intended use case.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Use instead of list_todos to conserve tokens', giving a direct condition for when to choose this tool over a sibling. It also clarifies usage of calendar_url by stating that omitting it searches across all calendars, providing practical guidance.

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