get_coach_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are sorted overdue-first, which is not derivable from the schema. It says nothing about limits, pagination, or result volume.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded — the ordering rule leads, followed by parameter semantics. The telegraphic fragments ('status: ... or None for every note') are terse but each clause carries information, with no filler.

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?

With no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description covers inputs well, but it omits the return shape (fields on a note) and any result-limit behavior, which an agent would want before calling.

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 carry the load, and it does: it enumerates status values (active|done|dropped) plus None-for-all, and defines due_by as YYYY-MM-DD filtering on review_on <= due_by. The only gap is that it doesn't state matching semantics (exact status equality) explicitly.

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 the resource (coach notes) and its ordering behavior (overdue first), so the agent knows this is a read of coach-note records. It doesn't explicitly name the write siblings (save_coach_note / update_coach_note), but the get/save distinction is inferable from the names.

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, no condition for choosing this over get_journal or get_trends, and no stated prerequisites. The description only documents parameters, leaving routing entirely to the agent.

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